United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (PM-221)
Washington, DC 20460
March 1990
&EPA Share the Costs -
Share the Benefits
•,
Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Cost-share Programs
-------
Share the Costs —
Share the Benefits
Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Cost-share Programs
A Manual
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
March 1990
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In completing this manual, valuable and generous assistance was received from individuals in
many branches of State and Federal government. Among them are the EPA Work Assignment
Managers, Kenneth Adler and Richard Kashmanian, and Ed Richards of EPA's Nonpoint
Source Branch. Others who contributed either materials or reviews to the original report or to
this manual include Alon Rosenthal of the Harvard School of Public Health; Ubbo Agena of
Iowa's Department of Natural Resources; James Cummings of the North Carolina Depart-
ment of Natural Resources and Community Development; Tom Davenport of EPA Region V;
Beverly Ethridge of EPA Region IV; John Houlihan of EPA Region VII; David Jelinski of
Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection; Larry Koenig of the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; Michael Llewelyn of Wisconsin's Department of
Natural Resources; Elbert Moore of EPA Region X; Amin Yasdanian of the Maryland Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share Program; and Hank Zygmunt of
EPA Region III. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No.
68-W8-0038.
11
-------
Contents
Preface v
Introduction and Summary 1
Characteristics of Successful Programs 5
Idaho Agricultural Water Quality Program 13
Iowa Financial Incentive Program 21
Maryland Agricultural Cost-share Program 27
North Carolina Agriculture Cost-share Program 35
Wisconsin Agricultural Cost-share Programs 45
111
-------
Preface
we enter the last decade of this century, this Nation is preparing to
conquer our most pervasive pollution problem—that of nonpoint sources.
Twenty years have gone by since the passage of the Clean Water Act, three
since section 319 became law.
And now, for the first time Congress has provided funding for States to
use in managing and controlling nonpoint sources of pollution. An initial
appropriation of $40 million in grants for fiscal year 1990 will begin that
process.
EPA's Nonpoint Source Control Branch has prepared State-by-State
interim planning targets for distributing this money, based upon interim
criteria that reflect nonpoint source needs. States with approved manage-
ment programs submited applications by January 16, and EPA's Regional
Offices made grant awards by March 1.
Clearly, Congress is insisting that the money it has appropriated be
used, in the words of the Conference Report, "as soon as possible." If noth-
ing else, this sense of urgency communicated by the Congress strengthens
both the State and Federal governments' approaches to managing non-
point source pollution.
And the appropriation itself can accomplish far more than its numbers
would indicate by coupling it with the cost-sharing arrangement described
in this manual. In these pages, you will find how to make this multiplier ef-
fect work for your State nonpoint source management program.
Congress has given us the basic tools and the opportunity to use them.
The nonpoint source management structure that we must build must be
designed with wisdom for the long term, to provide a permanent national
solution to nonpoint source pollution.
-------
Introduction and
Summary
'T'he mandate is clear: the Water Quality Act of
1987 requires States to develop programs to control
nonpoint source pollution. Even though such
programs will necessarily differ by State, each will, by
the very nature of the problem, address two basic
elements: (1) most nonpoint source pollution is
generated by human activities—therefore, citizens
must be persuaded to change some basic behaviors;
and (2) the water quality impaired rivers and lakes
must be identified and prioritized for restoration
under the nonpoint source program.
Water quality programs are intended to raise the
quality of waters to meet standards or goals for their
use. That is the intent of the Act's section 319, under
which States have assessed their waters and iden-
tified those most degraded by nonpoint source pol-
lution. Now, programs must focus on these severe
problems. This basic element of first targeting the
waterbodies that could produce the greatest public
benefit given available resources is inseparable from
the causal factor: the fact that human behavior must
change if nonpoint source pollution is to be
prevented.
This handbook addresses a technique that
provides an incentive for change: the agricultural
nonpoint source cost-share program for controlling
nonpoint sources. Although cost-sharing can work
at any level of government, this handbook is directed
at the State water quality program manager.
The handbook explains the elements in design-
ing, operating, and financing an agricultural non-
point source control cost-share program. By using
this information and adapting it to the unique condi-
tions in their own areas, State governments will find
in these pages a model for developing and im-
plementing their own cost-share programs. For
guidance in developing a targeted nonpoint source
program, States also should refer to EPA's Nonpoint
Source Guidance and Setting Priorities: the Key to
NPS Control. Both are available from EPA, Assess-
ment and Watershed Protection Division, WH-553,
Washington, DC 20460.
This chapter begins by defining agricultural cost-
share arrangements and summarizing the factors
key to making such programs work. Chapter 2
provides greater detail on the characteristics of ef-
fective programs. The rest of the handbook
describes five examples of existing State cost-share
programs —Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina,
and Wisconsin-and explains how they work.
What is a Cost-share Program?
An agricultural cost-share program is a method for
sharing installation costs for nonpoint source pollu-
tion controls between a governmental entity (usually
a State) and a farmer or rancher. These control
mechanisms are usually known as best manage-
ment practices (BMPs).
Keys to Effective Cost-share
Programs
The success of a State cost-share program for non-
point source control depends on two basic factors:
(1) efficient management of program funds and (2) a
high level of farmer participation in the critical areas
of the targeted watersheds. Within each targeted
-------
watershed only a portion of the agricultural land may
need treatment: this is called the "critical area." If
program funds are not managed wisely, the monies
will be ineffectively spent. If not enough farmers in
the critical areas participate in the program, non-
point source pollution will not decrease as planned.
In turn, like a pyramid, these basic elements
depend on achieving several other factors, especial-
ly the following:
1. Securing participation from enough farmers
in the targeted watersheds to achieve water
quality standards;
2. Setting appropriate cost-share rates;
3. Maintaining communication between farmers
and staff in the field;
4. Developing cost-share agreements in a
timely fashion; and
5. Ensuring the expeditious flow of cost-share
funds.
Securing Participation in the Targeted
Areas
One participating farm per watershed probably will
not improve water quality. Ideally, most farm opera-
tions in the critical area(s) of a targeted watershed
should participate. So, instead of waiting for ap-
plicants to request funds, State programs should set
priorities and actively solicit participation in the criti-
cal areas.
North Carolina and Wisconsin base eligibility for
cost-share funds not on open application but on
their own surveys of water quality conditions. This
method establishes those areas most needing atten-
tion, thereby avoiding at least in the first round what
often can be a political rather than a water-quality-
based process.
Most States also limit participation to active
farms, in some States to fairly large operations be-
cause small farms usually have little effect on water
quality. Iowa, for example, will not cost-share with a
farm less than 10 acres in size or under $2,500 in
agricultural sales annually.
Setting Appropriate Cost-Share Rates
A major influence on program participation and a
key consideration in the efficient use of State funds is
the cost-share rate: the percentage of BMP installa-
tion costs covered by the State in the cost-share pro-
gram. Higher cost-share rates increase farmer
participation, simply because the farmer has to pay
less money out of his own pocket. However, the
State may opt for lower rates to save money or
stretch the dollars to cover more farmers and water-
sheds. Therefore, an efficient cost-share program is
one that evenly balances these concerns: it attracts
enough farmers to the program to achieve the
desired reductions in nonpoint source pollution, but
does so at the lowest possible cost to the State.
The appropriate cost-share rate may vary among
States or areas within a State, and also among
BMPs, depending upon program goals and local
conditions. In addition, the ability to set appropriate
cost-share rates depends on the amount of State
money available.
State funds can go much further if they are pig-
gybacked with USDA cost-share and land retirement
programs. USDA encourages States to provide ad-
ditional incentives for farmers in water quality im-
paired areas to participate in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). State money used in com-
bination with USDA cost-share or CRP monies will
reduce pollutant loads on far more acres of
cropland.
Some States have been able to set lower rates for
BMPs that benefit the farmer economically as well as
improve water quality. For example, program
managers may successfully set lower cost-share
rates for installing sedimentation ponds or con-
structing manure storage sheds, because the direct
benefits of these BMPs to the farmer make them at-
tractive in their own right.
In contrast, for BMPs that provide few private
benefits (such as installation of a field border, which
takes land out of production), a higher cost-share
rate may be necessary to encourage the farmer to
adopt the practice.
Other factors also affect cost-share rates. For ex-
ample, BMPs with high installation costs may require
higher cost-shares to reduce the farmer's financial
burden and encourage participation. The same may
be true for less familiar BMPs, where higher cost-
share rates may be necessary to overcome farmers'
reluctance to employ practices they perceive as un-
tried or risky.
The farm's proximity to a waterbody may also in-
fluence the rate, as may the longevity of the BMP
Cost-share rates may be lowered where farmers are
required to control soil erosion for the USDA's Con-
servation Compliance Program. State regulations
may also encourage greater participation, whatever
the cost-share rate.
-------
Importance of Good Communication
Between Field Staff and Farmers
A cost-share program cannot be successful unless
there is good communication between the State field
staff and farmers. This means more than good face-
to-face relations, although that certainly is important.
It also means that the field staff must have the techni-
cal knowledge necessary to assist farmers with in-
stallation and be able to convey that knowledge
effectively.
Timely Initiation and Completion of
Contract
A cost-share agreement between the farmer and
State will be more successful if it is developed and
completed promptly. If too much time passes, the
farmer may lose interest in the program, the
economic condition of the farm may change, and/or
the nonpoint source problem may worsen.
Cost-share contracts should be written and
signed as soon as possible after the farmer expres-
ses interest in the program, and contracts should
specify that the BMP be established within a
reasonable time period after the contract is signed.
The decision on the time period should take into ac-
count factors such as the time of year and the
availability of contractors to install BMPs.
Expeditious Flow of Funds to Farmers
Most cost-share programs require farmers to pay for
the BMPs selected, after which the State reimburses
the farmer for his or her share of the cost. This can
pose a cash-flow problem for a farmer if the State
does not reimburse him within a relatively short
period of time; if payment is frequently tardy, pro-
gram participation is likely to surfer.
Because State governments, many with massive
bureaucracies, often fail to make cost-share pay-
ments until long after work has been completed,
some officials favor transferring State funds to the
local Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Once
they receive State funds, these districts can quickly
dispense funds to farmers as BMP installation is
completed.
Another alternative is the use of a so-called
"bridge" loan. A bridge loan is an interest-bearing
loan taken out by a farmer to cover BMP installation
costs prior to receiving cost-share payment from the
State. Bridge loans to farms under contract to install
BMPs could be funded through a revolving account
established by the State nonpoint source manage-
ment program.
Timeliness and good communication in all
aspects of the arrangement are certainly the
hallmarks of a successful cost-share program.
These elements will become more apparent as the
reader follows this handbook through the charac-
teristics of successful programs and the descrip-
tions of how they are applied by several States.
-------
Characteristics of Successful
Programs
TThis chapter further details the key characteristics
of successful agricultural cost-share programs.
These characteristics include
• eligibility criteria,
• contract arrangements and requirements,
• cost-share rates and limitations on the use of
cost-share funds,
• enforcement mechanisms,
• program funding levels, and
• participation rates.
The structure of this chapter parallels the struc-
ture of actual State program assessments.
Program Description
Goals
In improving water quality to attain standards or
goals, program goals fit into two categories: the
control of agricultural nonpoint source pollution, or
the control of soil erosion. While these goals differ,
the end result generally is the same: to reduce load-
ings of agricultural pollutants to the State's surface
waters and, in some cases, ground waters so as to
improve their quality. Today, with enactment of sec-
tion 319 of the Water Quality Act, State programs
should consider attainment of water quality stand-
ards as their ultimate goal.
Administration
Although administered locally by Soil Conservation
Districts or land conservation committees, State
cost-share programs are managed by either the
State environmental office or State agricultural of-
fice. An example of the former is Idaho's Agricultural
Water Quality Program, run by Idaho's Department
of Environmental Quality; an example of the latter is
Iowa's Financial Incentives Program, administered
by the Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship.
In Maryland, the Agricultural Cost-Share Pro-
gram is coordinated by the State Department of
Agriculture, with the Department of the Environment
acting in an advisory role. In North Carolina, the
Agriculture Cost-Share Program is administered by
Soil and Water Conservation Commission within the
Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
Wisconsin has two major programs: the Non-
point Source Water Pollution Abatement Program
administered by the Department of Natural Resour-
ces, and the Soil and Water Resource Management
Program administered by the Department of Agricul-
ture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Clearly, effective cost-share programs can be
operated through a variety of program offices, in-
cluding environmental and agricultural departments.
While State agricultural departments generally have
more experience with farm-based programs (and
probably more credibility with farmers), environmen-
tal agencies offer the expertise necessary to ensure
that cost-share efforts focus on improving water
quality and achieving water quality standards. The
lead agency should be identified in the State non-
point source management program.
-------
While the programs can be directed at the State
level by various departments, at the local level they
usually are managed by Soil Conservation Districts
or land conservation committees. Successful State
program administrators credit the effectiveness of
their programs to motivated and well-trained local
staff.
Acceptable BMPs
All of the States whose programs are described in
this manual recognize contouring, diversions, grade
stabilization structures, and grassed waterways as
acceptable cost-share BMPs. Other BMPs, because
of unique geographic conditions, are recognized by
only a few States, such as Wisconsin's acceptance
of shoreline protection.
In addition, program policy determines the BMPs
that qualify for State cost-share funds. For example,
Maryland discontinued cost-sharing for no-till plant-
ing after determining that conditions for no-till were
so favorable in the State that many farmers would
implement this practice even without cost-share
funding. But, at the suggestion of the Maryland
Department of the Environment, Maryland's Depart-
ment of Agriculture is adding fencing of stream
banks as an acceptable cost-share BMR recogniz-
ing the importance of fencing in controlling pollution
from livestock wastes and preventing stream bank
erosion.
Exhibit 1 presents a tabulation of acceptable
BMPs by cost-share programs in the five example
States.
Program Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility for agricultural cost-share programs
generally is determined at two management levels.
State program authorities determine the eligibility of
the district, watershed, and/or county to take part in
the program, and list eligible areas in the State's 319
Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. Soil Conser-
vation Districts determine the eligibility of farms
within their jurisdiction.
Proper determination of a farm's eligibility for par-
ticipation in a cost-share program is a key deter-
minant of program success. If eligibility is defined
too loosely, monies may be wasted on BMPs that
lead to little gain in water quality, and funds would
therefore be unavailable to implement BMPs that
lead to more significant improvements. If eligibility is
defined too narrowly, local districts will find it cum-
bersome to administer, and farmers will hesitate to
participate.
Selection of Priority
Watersheds/Districts/Counties
Priority watersheds, districts, and/or counties can be
selected for cost-share programs in one of two
ways: the district may apply to the State program for
funds or the State may survey water quality condi-
tions to determine eligibility. In either case, similar
factors are considered:
• severity of agricultural nonpoint source
problems;
• percentage of "highly erosive" acres in the
district;
• soil erosion estimates based on the
Universal Soil Loss Equation;
• existence of nutrient sensitive waters;
• potential for significant nonpoint source
reduction;
• willingness and likelihood of landowner
participation;
• other sources of pollution and ease of
control of these sources;
• potential gain in water quality from the
program; and
• availability of cost-share funding.
Priority areas must be listed in the State's section
319 Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. For infor-
mation on selecting priority watersheds, see Select-
ing Priority NFS Projects: You Better Shop Around,
available from EPA, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, WH-553, Washington, DC
20460.
Selection of Eligible Farms and BMPs
Once program officials have determined local fund-
ing eligibility, Soil Conservation District or soil con-
servation committee personnel establish priorities
for projects within their jurisdictions. Factors similar
to those used in determining regional eligibility also
are used to select farms. Usually, the majority of
agricultural loadings originate from only a portion of
the farms in a watershed.
Cost-share funds may be granted to farmers
engaged in almost any type of agricultural activity,
including management of pastureland, hayland,
cropland, and grazing land, as well as poultry opera-
tions and animal feedlots.
-------
Exhibit 1
Acceptable BMPs by State
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE*
Critical area planting
Terrace
Grade stabilization structure
Grassed waterway or outlet
Diversion
Tillage BMPs
Contouring
Waste management
Contour strip cropping
Livestock exclusion (fencing)
Fertilizer management
Trough or tank
Filter strip
Water and sediment control basin
Crop rotations
Pesticide management
Field windbreak/WB renovation
Spring development
Stock trails and walkways
Pasture and hayland planting
Rock-lined waterway or outlet
Mulching
Field border
Barnyard runoff management
Crop residue management
Dike
Underground outlet
Divided slope farming
Grass strips
Irrigation management
Heavy use area protection
Land smoothing
Cover and green manure crop
Sod-based rotation
Crop/pastureland conversion
Cross slope farming
l,o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IA
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
oiaies
MD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ws '
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Buried pipe runoff control X
Shoreline protection
Water control/pond X
Chiseling and subsoiling X
Minibasin X
*ln some cases BMP categories may overlap, but terminology utilized by a State differs enough to warrant separation.
**\D - Idaho
IA — Iowa
MD — Maryland
NC — North Carolina
WS — Wisconsin
However, in some States, certain farms are not
eligible for cost-share funds. For example, because
extremely small farms generally are expected to
have little impact on water quality, farms less than 10
acres in size or with less than $2,500 in annual
agricultural product sales are not eligible for Iowa's
Financial Incentives Program. In some cases, how-
ever, small livestock operations can be serious pol-
lutant sources, especially where several are
concentrated in a watershed.
-------
Most States studied also limit participation to
farms that qualify as "active," usually defined in terms
of the most recent year of agricultural activity.
Some States, such as Maryland, prohibit farms
from receiving cost-share funds under other Federal
or State programs while using funds under the non-
point source program. In some cases, the local dis-
trict representative may suggest to farmers that they
participate in other cost-share programs, because of
variations in eligibility requirements or the ease of
receiving cost-share funding.
District personnel may define criteria for par-
ticipation within the general guidelines set by State
program authorities. This is especially true in North
Carolina, where the State encourages districts to
tailor funding strategies to their individual cir-
cumstances and water quality problems. Some
North Carolina districts use a first-come, first-served
criterion, which does not address the need to en-
courage participation by farms in the critical areas of
targeted watersheds. Other districts, however, focus
on certain areas or the alleviation of particular non-
point source problems.
Soil Conservation Districts in Iowa also generally
employ a first-come, first-served approach, but give
funding priority to family-operated farms, farms ex-
hibiting high soil erosion rates, and those nearest
bodies of water.
In Idaho, all farmers within approved cost-share
districts are eligible for funding, but the Soil Conser-
vation District may focus its initial efforts on gaining
the participation of the largest farmers.
Wisconsin's nonpoint source program employs
an eligibility assessment system. This system uses a
computer model to develop relative nonpoint source
potential scores for farms, factoring in all known
nonpoint source pollution elements (e.g., slope of
land and planting methodology). Farms are placed
into three eligibility categories: eligible essential
(i.e., can be required to participate in the program,
with or without cost-share funding); eligible (i.e., can
receive cost-share funding); and not eligible. The
system is implemented at the Land Conservation
Committee level.
Contract Arrangements/
Requirements
State nonpoint source cost-share program descrip-
tions should include information on contract arran-
gements and requirements. Issues addressed
include who signs the contract, whether an applica-
tion submitted by a tenant farmer must also be
signed by the landowner, how much time may
elapse between contract signing and installation of
BMPs, the types of costs covered, typical BMP main-
tenance periods, the length of time between installa-
tion of a BMP and reimbursement by the State to the
farmer for expenses, and the status of the contract
when land ownership changes hands.
Who Signs the Cost-share Agreement
Generally, the farmer is expected to sign a cost-
share agreement. In most cases, if the cost-shared
BMPs are to be implemented on a farm operated by
a tenant farmer, both the tenant farmer and the land-
owner must sign the contract. In most programs, the
local district or board also signs the contract. Under
Maryland's program, the Soil Conservation District,
the Department of Agriculture, and the Board of
Public Works must sign the contract. Too many sig-
natures, however, can create unnecessary delays.
Selection of BMPs
The farmer generally works with the local district or
committee representative to determine the best
BMP or BMPs to control a farm's particular nonpoint
source loading. Farmer involvement in choosing
BMPs is crucial to recruiting farmers to the program.
The farmer's knowledge of his own operation also
enables the Soil Conservation District to recom-
mend BMPs that will be cost-effective to implement
and maintain.
Restrictions on Time Frame of
Implementation
Most programs try to minimize long delays between
contract signing and implementation to avoid the
risks of changing financial situations, worsening pol-
lution, and the farmer deciding not to participate in
the program. However, actual time limits vary widely
among the States.
For example, in Idaho, all contracts include cus-
tomized schedules for each major phase of BMP im-
plementation. Similarly, North Carolina contracts
specify implementation schedules, generally of
three years' duration.
Maryland farmers must implement BMPs funded
under Maryland's Agricultural Cost-Share Program
within one year of contract signing. Iowa gives
farmers 18 months after application approval to in-
stall BMPs. In Wisconsin, all contracts must be
signed within three years following selection of a
watershed as a "priority." Once a contract is signed,
the farmer has five years to complete BMP im-
plementation.
-------
BMP Maintenance Periods
Required maintenance periods can vary, depending
on the needs of the State and the BMPs being used.
Maintenance periods for non-permanent or cultural
BMPs such as rotation cropping may be as short as
one year. For permanent or structural BMPs, con-
tractual maintenance periods may be as long as 20
years. Filter or buffer strips, which are becoming in-
creasingly popular under the Conservation Reserve
Program, may require maintenance every two to four
years.
Reimbursement of Farmer for
Expenses
One important factor in attracting —or discourag-
ing—farmers to cost-share programs is the length of
time it takes to receive cost-share funds from the
State once the project has been completed. Wiscon-
sin reimburses farmers at the end of the year for all
work on BMPs during the year unless BMPs are
completed during the year, in which case the farmer
is paid in full. Maryland's cost-share program has no
set payment schedule, but attempts to get checks to
farmers within one month of BMP completion and
justification of expenses.
Changes in Farm Ownership
States handle changes in farm ownership differently.
In some States, the new landowner must agree to
maintain the BMP(s), or the original landowner must
refund the cost-share funds. For example, under
Wisconsin's agricultural cost-share programs, if
land ownership changes during the life of the con-
tract, cost-share funds must be repaid unless at least
one of two conditions is met: written assurance by
the new landowner that the BMPs will be properly
maintained, or a demonstration that the change in
land use or management will not degrade water
quality.
Maryland requires landowners to notify the State
of changes in land ownership, and the new owner
must sign a supplemental contract. If the purchaser
does not sign, the original landowner must return all
cost-share funds to the State.
Contract Renewal
Many programs do not contain provisions for
renewal at the end of the initial contract, although
program officials hope that farmers will continue to
maintain BMPs beyond the contracted period. But
many BMPs will require funding for renewal (e.g.,
sedimentation ponds must be dredged). As these
programs mature and contracts expire, program
managers hope to develop mechanisms to help
farmers extend BMP life.
Cost Sharing
Effective cost sharing depends on a number of fac-
tors, including cost-share rates, funding limits,
whether operation and maintenance costs can be
covered by cost-share funds, limits on expenses for
BMPs or their components, and who oversees and
assesses the appropriateness of expenditures.
Exhibit 2 summarizes cost-share rates for the five
example States, showing that rates generally range
from 50 to 70 percent, with the highest rate 87.5 per-
cent.
Determination of Cost-share Rates
A variety of factors influence a State's determination
of the appropriate cost-share rate. In a number of
States (including Maryland and Wisconsin), rates
are adjusted to reflect whether the individual farmer
benefits from the installation of a BMP
For example, under Maryland's program, farmers
who install sedimentation ponds receive only 65 per-
cent rather than 85 percent cost-share, since the
pond is expected to benefit the farmer (its potential
use for irrigation water) beyond reducing nonpoint
source pollution.
Wisconsin's policy explicitly sets BMP cost-share
rates to reflect the balance between private and
public benefits and the magnitude of the BMPs' capi-
tal cost. For BMPs with high public but low private
benefit and a high capital cost (such as a manure
storage facility), Wisconsin assigns a 70 percent
cost-share rate, compared to 50 percent for other
BMPs. Strip-cropping is an example of a very effec-
tive but low cost BMP that Wisconsin cost-shares at
the 50 percent rate.
Idaho's Agricultural Water Quality Program has
raised the cost-share rate for certain new and less
well-known BMPs to encourage farmers to install
them. This same strategy might interest States who
want to increase the use of certain BMPs known to
reduce nonpoint source loadings and improve water
quality.
At least one State discourages farming of conser-
vation land by lowering the cost-share rate for
farmers who plow land that has stood fallow for an
extended period of time. Under Iowa's Financial In-
centives Program, land that has not been plowed or
planted in row crops for 15 years or more is con-
-------
sidered "land under conservation cover." If such land
is plowed or planted in row crops, any BMPs on it are
limited to a 25 percent cost-share rate, as opposed
to the usual 50 percent rate.
In Wisconsin, Land Conservation Committees
may use their own funds to increase cost-share
rates. In such cases the State will match increases
up to 10 percent. Thus, for example, a county may
increase the cost-share rate for a BMP from 70 to 90
percent by providing a 10 percent increase in cost
shares and by receiving 10 percent matching funds
from the State. In this way, counties can increase the
incentives for farmers to install BMPs, and also can
encourage the use of BMPs believed to be par-
ticularly effective in addressing local nonpoint
source problems.
In addition, cost-share rates can be set higher to
increase farmer participation in critical areas, to en-
courage the use of BMPs with greater longevity, or to
counteract other factors that impede participation.
Limits on Use of Cost-share Funds
Cost-share funds are generally limited to installation
of BMPs, with a few exceptions. For example, Wis-
consin allows cost-sharing for BMP maintenance,
but only in cases where a natural event (e.g., storms,
flood, or fire) damaged the BMP.
North Carolina's program specifically prohibits
using cost-share funds to purchase equipment (be-
cause these items can be used in the overall farm
operation), and further excludes the purchase of cer-
tain items (such as lime and seed) from the cost-
shared amount.
Limits on Funding Available to Farms
There are many ways to ensure that funds are equi-
tably distributed. Many States limit the total dollar
amount of funding available to any one farm. For ex-
ample, an Idaho landowner cannot receive more
than $50,000 from a district. In Maryland, farmers are
limited to $10,000 per project and $25,000 per farm.
In Wisconsin, any proposed cost share over $50,000
must be submitted to the Department of Natural
Resources or the Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection for review.
Such limits encourage the distribution of cost-
share funds to a larger number of farmers. Care must
be taken, however, to avoid spreading the money so
thinly that level of participation will be compromised
and water quality will not improve.
Cost Containment Procedures
With money for cost-share and other worthy
programs invariably scarce, States need to find
ways to stretch available dollars. The best way is to
contain the BMP costs, and States who already have
successful programs have found a variety of ways to
do this.
In Maryland, flat rates (e.g., a fixed dollar amount
per foot of waterway constructed) for many com-
ponents of BMPs are set by the Soil Conservation
Districts. In North Carolina, the 75 percent cost-
share rate is paid out on a predetermined average
cost of BMP implementation. This average cost
varies among BMPs and regions of the State.
Some States, including Iowa, set flat rates for cer-
tain BMPs, and specify in the contracts whether
reimbursement will be based on actual costs or flat
rates. If an actual cost method is used, the contract
will specify the maximum allowable cost-share
amount.
In Wisconsin, counties can choose one of three
cost containment procedures: average cost, range
of costs, or landowner bidding for the lowest cost
contract services.
Reimbursement for Farmer Labor
Most State programs compensate farmers for their
own labor in installing BMPs. The hourly rate is either
fixed or reflects the alternative cost of contract labor.
Farmers are generally not compensated for using
their own equipment.
Authority Charged With Oversight
Among the five example States, local Soil Conserva-
tion Districts or Land Conservation Committee per-
sonnel perform cost-oversight duties in four. In the
fifth State, Maryland, both the local Soil Conserva-
tion Districts and the State Department of Agriculture
oversee the accounting of costs.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Proper installation and maintenance of BMPs are
vital to the success of any agricultural cost-share
program. Strict formal guidelines are needed to deal
with contract violations.
10
-------
Basis for Enforcement
Generally, the farmer (and, for most tenant farmers,
the landowner) must sign a contract that defines the
technical specifications and proper maintenance of
all installed BMPs. In addition, these agreements
generally specify how long the BMP must be main-
tained. All programs use some form of on-site in-
spection by district personnel, either on a
spot-check or annual basis.
Definition of Violations
Violations generally are defined as deviations from
proper maintenance standards set forth in the Soil
Conservation Service's Technical Guide or similar
State rules. Violations are also identified based on
the professional experience and judgment of the Soil
Conservation District representative.
At the time an agreement is signed, district repre-
sentatives work with the farmer to define proper
BMP maintenance procedures.
Enforcement Procedures
Formal enforcement procedures are needed when a
contract violation is identified. The farmer/landowner
must be notified of the condition that led to the con-
tract violation and given a specific time frame in
which to correct the problem. The notification
should also reference the penalty (as defined by the
contract) for failing to remedy the violation. One
such penalty might be refunding cost-share funds to
the State.
Farmers generally correct violations soon after
notification. Should this not occur, however, before
demanding that the farmer give back the cost-share
money district personnel should go out to the farm
to offer technical assistance.
Table 1
Program Funding Level
It is difficult to meaningfully compare funding levels
for agricultural nonpoint source programs across
States, largely because of differences in program
maturity, the total acreage of farm land, agricultural
activity, and the nature and extent of the nonpoint
source problems. Thus, funding information is
presented in Table 1 for illustrative, not comparative,
purposes. Table 1 also excludes Federal cost-share
efforts, which are outside the scope of this Manual.
Officials from three of five programs assessed
reported a shortage of cost-share funds (i.e., pro-
gram budget constraints were forcing eligible
farmers to wait for cost shares).
Years In
Existence
State Level
Idaho
Iowa
Maryland
North Carolina
Wisconsin (Nonpoint Source)
Wisconsin (Soil Program)
8
17
5
4
10
7
Annual Funding
(1988)
($ millions)
0.8*
6.5
3.4**
6.5
6.7
0.5
Estimate based on total awards to farmers of $6.1 million
over 8 years
** Estimate based on total awards to farmers of $17 million
over 5 years
Maryland's program was the only nonpoint
source cost-share program assessed in which the
State legislature allocates a fixed proportion of the
funds to specific geographic regions. In this case, 75
percent of the funds are earmarked for cost shares in
priority watersheds. Program officials can transfer
funds among priority watersheds, and between
priority and non-priority watersheds, if farms in these
areas are found to be eligible for the program and in-
itial allocations are not sufficient.
Participation
As illustrated by Table 2, States measure cost-share
program participation in various ways—by numbers
of projects, acres, contracts, and farmers.
Table 2
Program
Idaho
Iowa
Maryland
North Carolina
Wisconsin
(Nonpoint Source)
Wisconsin
(Soil Programs)
Participation
43,500
70,000
2,887
4,643
350,000
1,763
290
Base Used
Acres under contract
Farmers receiving funds
Projects completed
Agreements signed
Acres under contract
Contracts signed
Contracts signed
To succeed in protecting water quality, a cost-
share program must be actively promoted by the
local committee. All types of advertising may be
used: newsletters, direct mail, workshops, radio and
television. The most effective promotion, however, is
by personal contact. Many soil conservation districts
directly solicit farms with severe nonpoint source
problems-or those whose participation they
11
-------
believe necessary to achieve the local water quality
goals.
Routine visits to farmers by district personnel
provide a good opportunity to diagnose nonpoint
source problems and suggest BMPs to alleviate
them. Some States estimate that at least half of the
cost-share applications result from these informal
visits with farmers, most of whom have developed a
close relationship with their district personnel.
But there is always a "bad actor," the landowner
who for one reason or another will not participate.
Conservation district chairmen in some North
Carolina counties have succeeded in stopping local
banks from granting loans to polluting farmers who
refused to participate in the cost-share program. In
other districts, neighborhood delegations have tried
to persuade recalcitrant farmers to participate.
These uncooperative landowners, minority though
they may be, have convinced many officials that
regulatory authority is needed.
To those farmers who choose to participate, how-
ever, the voluntary approach is a valued component
of the cost-sharing program.Other reasons also
draw farmers to the program: the desire to improve
a farming operation (and its bottom line) as well as
the conservation ethic. But as the farmer realizes the
benefits of reducing nonpoint sources of pollution-
and the community and society at large perceive the
resulting improvements in water quality-wise land
use that protects water quality may no longer be
termed'Voluntary1: it will be the norm.
Cost sharing's ultimate justification, then, may be
its educational role. By demonstrating the long-term
cost-effectiveness of BMPs-and the better water
quality that results-cost sharing can spread these
practices to non-participants. Eventually, BMPs and
all wise land use practices will become self-per-
petuating, integrated into this Nation's struggle to
protect the quality of its waters.
12
-------
Idaho Agricultural Water Quality
Program
Tn 1979, Idaho developed and adopted an agricul-
tural pollution abatement plan with funds provided
under section 208 of the 1972 National Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. The plan called for a voluntary pro-
gram that would encourage farmers and ranchers to
apply best management practices to reduce non-
point sources of water pollution from Idaho's agricul-
tural lands. To fulfill this aspect of the plan, the State
initiated a 15-year Agricultural Water Quality Pro-
gram in 1980.
Using funds from the State's Water Pollution Con-
trol Account, the program directs Idaho's Division of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Idaho Soil
Conservation Commission (SCC) to make grants to
local Soil Conservation Districts, enabling them to
plan and implement pollution control projects along
streams adversely affected by agricultural activities.
Exhibit 2 illustrates this use of Water Pollution Con-
trol Account funds. Under Idaho's Agricultural Water
Quality Program, local Soil Conservation Districts
submit applications to DEQ and SCC for grant
monies. Grants are available for two types of
projects: planning and implementation.
Planning projects last from one to two years.
During this time, districts identify causes of nonpoint
source pollution, select BMPs to correct the
problems, estimate treatment costs, and conduct in-
tensive informational and educational programs for
farmers and the general public in the project areas.
All of these activities increase public understanding
and awareness of the importance of improving water
quality and promote necessary public support for
subsequent project implementation.
Implementation grants enable Soil Conservation
Districts to conduct voluntary nonpoint source con-
trol projects along priority stream segments. This is
done through programs that share with farmers the
costs of installing BMPs. Through contracts with the
districts, farmers within a project area may receive
up to 75 percent of BMP capital/installation costs, to
a maximum of $50,000 per farm.
The State requires districts receiving implement-
ation grants to write contracts with farmers for 50
percent of the "critical acreage" in a project area
within three years of receiving the grants from DEQ,
and 75 percent within five years. Critical acres are
lands from which erosion contributes to water
quality problems. Districts may spend up to 15 per-
cent of the total implementation grant on project ad-
ministration, educational activities, and extra
technical assistance from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service.
As of September 1989, DEQ had funded 21 plan-
ning projects and 25 implementation projects. All of
the implementation projects are still active. A flow
chart of project procedures is included as Exhibit 3.
Eligibility
To be considered for funding, a proposed project
area's stream segments or other water bodies must
be on Idaho's agricultural priority list, which is con-
tained in the Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan.
DEQ updates this list every three to five years as
more knowledge is gained about land use practices
and their effects on water quality. Exhibit 4 presents
DEQ's criteria for ranking stream segments.
13
-------
Exhibit 2
Idaho Agricultural Water Quality Program
Funding Flow
Idaho Water Pollution Control Account
administered by
Division of Environment Quality
Water quality •
studies/ monitoring I
Agricultural water •
quality program I
Other water •
quality projects I
Planning Grants
(SCDs)
Implementation Grants
(SCDs)
Cost-share with farmers
75%
Technical assistance (SCSI,
education and information
15%
Project Administration
10%
Soil Conservation Districts then define proposed
project areas to include those agricultural lands con-
tributing to water quality problems of first priority
streams.
Upon receiving implementation grant applica-
tions from the districts, DEQ considers many factors
in deciding which proposals to fund. These include
an evaluation of the critical acres in the project area
in terms of water quality, major contributors of pollu-
tion, and land ownership patterns; the expected im-
provement in water quality for fisheries, drinking
water supplies, and other uses; the degree to which
farmers have been prepared for participation; and
the local Soil Conservation District's ability to carry
out the proposed program. DEQ also reviews the
level of funding requested by the district and may, in
consultation with district members, revise it.
Once an implementation project is approved, all
farmers within the project area may participate.
However, in the interest of allocating its funds most
effectively, the district may target certain landowners
for participation, particularly those with the largest
properties. If participation exceeds the State's 75-
percent-of-critical-acreage requirement, and the dis-
trict needs more funds to assist additional interested
farmers in the project area, DEQ can increase the
grant to the district.
BMPs for irrigated and non-irrigated cropland, as
well as pasture land, hayland, and grazing land are
eligible for funding under the program. The choices
of BMPs for individual farms are based on assess-
ments of the soils, topography, climate, and crops
grown within a project area. A list of BMPs used in
Idaho is presented as Exhibit 5.
Contract Arrangements/
Requirements
When a farmer expresses interest in participating in
the cost-share program, a meeting with Soil Conser-
vation Service technical personnel is arranged to
discuss appropriate BMP alternatives for the land.
The farmer's preferences, such as the choice be-
tween structural or non-structural BMPs, are taken
14
-------
Exhibits
Idaho Agricultural Water Quality Program
Implementation Project Procedures
Implementation Grant Application by District
SCDs apply to DEQ for implementation grants for project areas containing state-designated priority
stream segment(s).
Grant Application Review and Approval
DEQ evaluates project proposals in consultation with SCDs. If projects are approved, DEQ obligates
funds from Water Pollution Control Account.
Education and Information
SCDs publicize projects, often targeting landowners with large numbers of "critical acres."
Technical Assistance and Cost-Sharing Contracts
Interested farmers meet with SCS personnel to design farm-specific BMP systems.
Contract specifying implementation and maintenance schedule, total costs, cost-share, and partici-
pant share is signed by farmer and SCD representative, and certified for technical adequacy by SCS
representative.
Monitoring
SCS personnel check BMP installation phases as completed.
Reimbursement
SCD reimburses farmer for completed, SCS-approved BMP phases.
Contract Modification
If farmer fails to install or maintain BMPs in accordance with contract schedule, due to weather,
financial, or other constraints, SCD may agree to modify the contract. However, informal means of
achieving compliance, such as providing additional technical assistance, are preferred.
Enforcement
When neither informal nor formal means succeed in bringing farmer into compliance, SCD may en-
force contract to recover money or materials from the farmer.
into consideration. The district provides the farmer
with information on the estimated costs associated
with the relevant BMPs, including the base installa-
tion costs to which the cost-share reimbursement
rate will apply, and expected maintenance costs.
The farmer is responsible for maintenance during
the evaluated life of each practice, or for the full term
of the contract when the evaluated life is not
specified.
An important program requirement is that all of a
participant's acreage that falls within the project area
be addressed by appropriate BMPs, not just
selected portions. However, because of the $50,000
per-farm maximum, the cost of implementing BMPs
15
-------
Exhibit 4
Criteria for Prioritizing Designated Stream Segments:
Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan
CATEGORY
Erosion
Water
quality
Stream
condition
Beneficial
uses
Pollution
sources
FIRST PRIORITY
Severe - over 5 tons per acre per year.
1 . Demonstrated poor water quality.
2. High water quality but important to protect:
e.g., special resource water.
Perennial stream capable of supporting beneficial
uses.
Supports or potential for fishable/swimmable
waters.
1. Agriculture is primary pollutant.
2. Problem can be corrected by BMPs.
SECOND PRIORITY
Moderate to severe 1-5 tons per
High to fair water quality.
acre per year.
Intermittent stream, habitat degraded beyond
recovery, channelized segments or
canals/ditches.
Cannot support fishable/swimmable uses.
1. Other pollution sources are the
2. Agriculture is primary pollutant,
cannot be corrected.
major problem.
but problem
Source: Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan, 1983.
on all the participant's acres may exceed the
district's ability to cost-share all practices on all
acres. To help the farmer comply with the require-
ment that all acres be addressed by BMPs, the dis-
trict provides information about additional sources
of funding for BMP implementation that may be
available from other county, State, or Federal
programs. These include the Agriculture Conserva-
tion Program, administered by USDA's Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS), and
programs under the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act (PL. 566).
Once the farmer is confident that the implemen-
tation, maintenance, and financial requirements can
be met, the district and the landowner draw up a
contract that meets SCS technical specifications. It
must be signed by the landowner and the chairman
of the local Soil Conservation District board. A
sample contract is included as Exhibit 6.
Contracts usually cover an eight- to ten-year
period and specify a schedule for each major phase
of BMP implementation. They can be rewritten to ac-
commodate unforeseen weather conditions that
might affect scheduled implementation of some
practices.
SCS field personnel approve BMP implementa-
tion and authorize reimbursement for each practice
or phase as it is completed. Once approved, the
farmer often receives payment within one week. Al-
though farmers are under no further obligation once
contracts expire, program administrators believe
most will continue to employ the BMPs.
Cost Sharing
All cost sharing is based on the actual costs of BMP
installation, including the value of the farmer's labor.
Farmers may receive up to 75 percent of the cost of
installing any one BMP to control water quality
problems, but typical cost-share rates are somewhat
lower. The actual percentage for each BMP is set by
the local Soil Conservation District to be comparable
to the rates paid by other agricultural cost-share
programs operating in the area, such as the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve
and Long-term Agreement programs. Higher rates
may be paid for newer, less familiar practices. Thus,
while rates are consistent within a district, they vary
slightly across the State.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Cases of non-compliance, when they occur, are
most often due to unforeseen weather conditions or
financial problems at the farm. District officials try to
negotiate solutions with farmers, and often rewrite
contracts to accommodate farmers' needs.
If the district believes that a contract violation
calls for a forfeiture, refund, payment adjustment, or
termination of the contract, the district's formal
course of action would be to issue a notice of viola-
tion. The farmer may then request a contract viola-
16
-------
Exhibits
List of Best Management Practices for Controlling
Certain Water Pollutants
SELECTED BMPs FOR CERTAIN WATER
QUALITY PROBLEMS
A. Standards and specifications are
developed for the following
practices:
** Buried pipe runoff control system
Chiseling and subsoiling
Conservation cropping system
Conservation tillage system
Contour farming
Cover and green manure crop
Critical area planting
Crop residue management
Cross slope farming
** Debris basin
Dike
Diversion
Divided slope farming
Emergency tillage
Fencing
Fertilizer application
Field windbreak
Grade stabilization structure
Grassed waterway or outlet
Irrigation canal or lateral
Irrigation ditch and canal lining
Irrigation field ditch
Irrigation gated pipeline
Irrigation land leveling
Irrigation pipeline
Irrigation system, drip
Irrigation system, sprinkler
Irrigation system, surface and subsurface
Irrigation system, tailwater-recovery
Irrigation water management
Land smoothing
Livestock exclusion (stream corridor)
Livestock water development
** Mini-basin
Minimum tillage
Mulching
Pasture and hayland management
Pasture and hayland planting
Proper pesticide application
** Restricted summer fallow
** Sediment structure or basin
Stream channel stabilization
Streambank protection
Strip cropping contour
Strip cropping field
Structure for water control
Stubble mulching
** T-slot sediment structure
Terrace
Toxic salt reduction
** Vegetative filter strip
Waste management system
B. Standards and specifications have not been
developed for the following practices:
Biological control of pests
No-till farming system
Resistant crop variety use
Waste utilization (organic)
BMP TYPE
"ro
3
*-j
Q
ID
o
2 "2
V) 3
§ &3
•z. o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
POLLUTANTS
*
~o
T3 r
$ i
TO Q.
.2> 0
±E 6
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
M
H
H
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
L
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
X
X
X
X
*
T3
c
CD
Ere
Q 0
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
M
L
M
M
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
H
H
H
H
c/1
c
gj
D
•z.
L
L
H
M
X
VI
0)
•o
'o
w
-------
Exhibits
IDAHO AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY PLAN
HAHE SCO
PROJECT TITLE
Page of Contr,
| COUHIV TOTAL
1 ACRES
STATE GRANT PROJECT HO. CRITICAL
ACRES
ITEM
NO.
FIELD
PLANNED TREATMENT
(RECORD OF COOPERATOR'S DECISIONS!
EST.
AMT.
UNITS
COST
BASIS
J
fCflST-
SHARE
RATE
I
I TIME ScHEOULt AMD tillHATETj'mrsTOC BY Yt«
(FOR NONCOST-SHARE ITEMS SHOW UNITS)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
MODIFI-
CATION
REf.
NO.
Page
NAME
SCO I COUNTY
PROJECT TITLE
sfAfE GRANT PROJECT NO.
TOTAL
ACRES
CRITICAL
ACRES
ITEM
NO.
FIELO
PLANNED TREATMENT
(RECORD OF COOPERATOR'S DECISIONS)
CONTRACT COSTS SUMMARY:
Total Participant Share by Year
Total Cost by Year
Total Contract Cost-Share •
Total Participant Share •
Total
EST.
AMT.
UNITS
COST
BASIS
»
COST-
SHARE
RATE
I
TIME SCHEDULE AND ESTIMATED COST-SHARE BY YEAR
(FOR NONCOST-SHARE ITEMS SHOW UNITS)
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
"When established, the conservation practices listed above are to be
maintained by the participant at no cost to the state or federal
government. When the evaluated life of a practice Is provided In the
applicable specification, the life span shall be the term of the
maintenance responsibility. When the evaluated life of a practice Is
not provided In the specification, the maintenance responsibility
shall not be less than the tenn of the contract."
All participants In the Idaho Agricultural Water Quality program are
limited to 8 maximum of 150,000 payment limitation. All practices
•111 be applied iccordlng to SCS Standards and Specifications provided
with this contract.
DATE
OWNER SIGNATURE
OPERATOR SIGNATURE
APPROVED BY 5.C.O. REPRESENTATIVE
DATE
SC5 IICHHICM. AOEdUACV CEPIIMCATIOH
DATE
18
-------
tion review before the district. The district's deter-
mination on the basis of the review may be appealed
to the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare. The
board's decision, made in consultation with the
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, is final. In
practice, however, such formal actions have never
been pursued.
Funding Level
DEQ and SCC signed the first three implementation
grants to Soil Conservation Districts in December
1981. As of September 1989, over $18.7 million had
been obligated to the Soil Conservation Districts for
agricultural water quality projects. During these first
nine years of the program, the districts in turn
obligated almost $6.2 million to farmers for BMP in-
stallations. The farmers are obligated to match these
funds with approximately $4.7 million of their own.
As of September 1989, the districts actually paid out
approximately $3.5 million in cost-share money, and
the farmers' expenditures totalled about $2.8 million.
Based on these figures, the average effective cost-
share rate is between 42 and 46 percent. In addition
to expenditures for cost sharing, Soil Conservation
Districts have spent approximately $1.1 million for
technical assistance, $0.7 million for information and
education activities, and $0.6 million for project ad-
ministration. Total Soil Conservation District im-
plementation project expenditures as of September
1989 were approximately $5.6 million.
Participation
As of September 1989, the Division of Environmental
Quality had made grants for 25 implementation
projects in 16 Soil Conservation Districts. Each
project addresses water quality problems on a dif-
ferent stream segment. Nearly 600,000 acres are
drained by these stream segments, of which almost
240,000 have been designated critical acres. For
each project to achieve the program goal of bringing
75 percent of its critical acres under contract, Soil
Conservation Districts must write agreements with
farmers for a total of approximately 175,000 acres.
As of September 1989, Soil Conservation Dis-
tricts had signed a total of 436 contracts with
farmers. An additional 189 farmers have applied to
participate, but do not yet have contracts. The
availability of funds is the main constraint on farmer
participation. If all 625 applications could be con-
tracted, over 165,000 acres would be enrolled in the
cost-share program.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan Martin, Manager
Surface Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(208) 334-5860
19
-------
Iowa Financial Incentive
Program
Cince 1971, the Iowa Department of Agriculture
and Land Stewardship (DALS) has been operating a
statewide program to reduce soil erosion. Known as
the Iowa Financial Incentive Program (FIP), this pro-
gram involves DALS oversight of each county's soil
erosion control plan and provides cost-share funds
and technical assistance to farmers for the im-
plementation of agricultural best management prac- ....
tices. While FIP's primary purpose is to control soil tllglDlllly
erosion from Iowa's farms, the program has had a
positive impact on nonpoint source pollution be-
cause of the important connection between soil
erosion and water quality.
Farmers eligible for cost-share funds under FIP
may receive 50 percent of the labor and material
costs of BMP installation to control agricultural non-
point source problems. Three types of BMPs are ac-
ceptable under FIP: permanent, temporary, and
tillage. All are designed to reduce the movement of
sediment and nutrients from agricultural lands to
surface water. Some may also have an indirect posi-
tive effect on ground water quality.
• Acceptable permanent BMPs include critical
area planting, diversions, field windbreaks,
grade stabilization structures, grass strips,
grassed waterways or outlets, pasture and
hayland planting, terraces, underground out-
lets, and water and sediment control basins.
• Acceptable temporary BMPs include reduced
tillage, contouring, and contour strip-cropping.
• Acceptable tillage BMPs include no-till plant-
ing, ridge-till planting, and strip-till planting. See
Exhibit 1 for a complete listing of all applicable
BMPs.
FIP is administered and implemented at the local
level by commissioners and staff of the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts. The districts receive
technical assistance from USDA's Soil Conservation
Service.
Selection of Eligible Soil and Water
Conservation Districts
All 100 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Iowa
are eligible to receive cost-share funds to implement
FIP. Each Soil and Water Conservation District
develops a comprehensive plan for conserving soil
resources and controlling and preventing soil
erosion and sediment damage.
Each district plan includes actions necessary to
achieve its goals. The primary goal of these com-
prehensive plans is to ensure that soil erosion from
all agricultural land in a district is below the tolerable
soil loss limit, which is the maximum amount of soil
loss resulting from erosion by water or wind, ex-
pressed in terms of tons per acre per year. The Soil
and Water Conservation Districts determine their
own soil loss limits, with DALS encouraging stand-
ard limits across districts.
Cost-share funds are allocated to the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts for the fiscal year. DALS
determines funding for each district by using a for-
mula based on the 1970 Conservation Needs Inven-
tory, which considers such factors as the percentage
21
-------
of the State's highly erosive acres in the district and
funds available to FIR At the beginning of the fiscal
year (July 1), DALS distributes 60 percent of the total
FIP funding to Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
with the other 40 percent distributed in supplemental
allocations.
Selection of Eligible Farmers and BMPs
All farms are eligible for FIP cost-share funds, except
those with fewer than 10 acres of agriculturally
productive land, and less than $2,500 in annual sales
of agricultural products.
Land under conservation cover, i.e., agricultural
land that has not been plowed or used for growing
row crops for the preceding 15 years, is eligible for
reduced FIP cost-share rates if subsequently plowed
or used for growing row crops.
The Soil and Water Conservation Districts notify
farmers of the availability of FIP cost-share funds by
newsletter, general mailings, and articles in local
newspapers. Farmers are encouraged to submit ap-
plications to the local district office for possible ac-
ceptance into FIP
Selection of farmers for FIP cost-share funds is
determined on a first-come, first-served basis, with a
few exceptions. Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
tricts give funding priority to farms that are family-
operated and that have high expected public
benefit from BMP implementation. Many Soil and
Water Conservation Districts in Iowa give priority
to farms with soil erosion rates significantly above
the soil loss limit and to farms near surface water
bodies. Each district may adopt its own specific
priority system io rank potential cost-share can-
didates, but the system must be available for
review at the district office.
Farmers submit an FIP application for cost-share
funds to the local Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
trict. If the district rejects an FIP application, it must
present a written explanation to the farmer detailing
reasons for denial. If the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District accepts a request for cost-share funds, a
district representative determines an acceptable
timeframe for BMP commencement and completion.
DALS allows the Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
tricts to establish their own deadlines, with the
stipulation that BMP installation must be started no
later than 18 months after FIP application approval.
Upon completion of BMP installation, a Soil and
Water Conservation District technician visits the
farm to determine if the completed practice con-
forms with applicable standards and specifications.
The farmer submits to the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District a signed claim voucher and all relevant
labor and material bills on a Proof of Expense form
(see Exhibit 7). A district technician reviews the
Proof of Expense form to determine whether the
costs incurred are reasonable and proper, consider-
ing such factors as the amount paid for materials,
the number of labor hours used, and the expense of
contract work performed. After this review, the tech-
nician completes a Certification of Practice form
Contract Arrangements/
Requirements
After Soil and Water Conservation Districts grant
initial approval to a farmer for FIP cost-share
funding, a Soil and Water Conservation District
technician visits the farm to jointly develop a
"farm unit soil conservation plan" with its owner
and, if appropriate, its operator. The farmer is en-
couraged to express BMP preferences to the
technician and to suggest soil conservation plan
options. Soil and Water Conservation District
technicians develop at least two soil conservation
plans that have the potential to cut soil erosion to
the soil loss limit.
Exhibit 7
IOWA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR SOIL EROSION CONTROL
PROOF OF EXPENSE
Iowa Department of Agriculture A Land Slcwardihlp Application No..
Dlvlilon of Soil Conttrvcllon
Form iP-i (Kr, a/U)
_ Counly Soil Conservation District
Legal Description (Qlr . Set . Township-Range. Counly) .
MATERIALS, LABOR, EQUIPMENT PROVIDED BY APPLICANT
Unit Unit Price
22
-------
stating whether the BMP was implemented properly
and whether costs are reasonable (see Exhibit 8).
Proof of Expense forms and Certification of Prac-
tice forms are forwarded by Soil and Water Conser-
vation Districts to DALS, which releases funds that
pay the farmer the reimbursable cost of BMP im-
plementation.
Before participating farmers are awarded FIP
cost-share funds by the Soil and Water Conservation
District, they must sign maintenance and/or perfor-
mance agreements (Exhibit 9) pledging to maintain
BMPs for specific periods. Exhibit 10 presents an
overview of Iowa's FIP procedures.
Cost Sharing
FIP provides 50 percent cost shares for installation
of permanent and temporary BMPs. If agricultural
land is classified as land under conservation cover
(defined previously) and if such land is subsequently
plowed or used for growing row crops, FIP allows a
cost-share rate of only 25 percent for BMP im-
plementation. Tillage BMPs are reimbursable at a flat
rate per acre. Farmers are reimbursed for their own
Exhibits
IOWA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR SOIL EROSION CONTROL
CERTIFICATION OF PRACTICE
Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship Application No._
Dlvlslon of Soil Conservation
Form IP-I (R« 1/M)
—County Soil and Water Conservation District
Applicant
Landowner
PERMANENT SOIL CONSERVATION PRACTICES
n 50% Voluntary Practice
Q 75% Mandatory Amount Installed
n 75*> Lakes Actual Cost
I I No-Interest Loans Financial Incentive
O Olner Acres benefited
Soil Loss/Tons
Per Acre
WIND EROSION CONTROL INCENTIVE PROGRAM (WECIP)
O Iowa Till (50% residue) Amount Installed
ll Grass Strips Financial Incentive
n Field Windbreaks Soil Loss/Tons
Per Acre
Before .
Alter _
S
Before .
After _
TILLAGE PRACTICES
n No-Till Planting
HH Ridge-Till Planting
C] Strip-Till Planting
TEMPORARY PRACTICES
Q Contouring
I I Contour Stripcropping
Amount Installed
Financial Incentive
Soil Loss/Tons
Per Acre
Amount Installed
Financial Incentive
Soil Loss/Tons
Per Acre
Before-
After _
TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION
I certify that the above-described practice has been constructed or performed In accordance with applicable
standards of Division of Soil Conservation rules in Chapter 5 of Section 760, Iowa Administrative Code, and
recommend that the reimbursable cost described above be approved by the soil and water conservation district
as reasonable and proper.
Distribution, 5WCO case die (while). Applicant (ca
Exhibit 9
IOWA FINANCIAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR 6OIL EROSION CONTROL
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Milnteninc* Agreement No.
_ County Soil Conservation District
This AGREEMENTS made and entered Into this day of
(lime e* Application No.)
,19 , by and between
_ County Soil Conservation District, herein called DISTRICT,
, herein called RECIPIENT.
and
WITNESSED
DISTRICT and RECIPIENT hereby agreethatihla covenant ta executed to satisfy the requl reman la ol Iowa Cod« Seclton4il7A,7fia) end should
be interpreted in • runner that promote* the policies of Chipter M7A of the Iowa Cod«. Section 467A.7(16} mult* tnli covenant u * condition
for rmMr^DISTRICTIInarKlallrKMnllvaasaliUnce arid provltolhal the o
liable through this AGREEMENT If thetoll end watarcwiervatlon practice heralnriamed to not maintained or U removed, eJtared or modified while
thU AGREEMENT b effective
DISTRICT hereby agreet lo provide I _
_lo RECIPIENT for pertliHy or completely financing the he rein lilted permanent soil
and weter conservation precllce On the loll owing described agricultural land In the County ol
and Sute ol lowi lo-wrt.
RECIPIENT hereby agree* lo nalnlaln the erosion control capabilities ol the permanent toll snd weter conservsHon practice herein named by
complying with DIVISION maintenance requirement) lor twenty (20) years Irom (he dale ol this AGREEMENT.
RECIPIENT hereby agreeethit no action ahall be taken bytheRECIPIENTorhlt/heragentt or wecowom to re move.alter or modify and toil and
water conservation practice herein named lor twenty (20) yean unteaa prior written authorization H obUlnedlrom Ihe DISTRICT and Incorporated
into thl* AGREEMENT.
RECIPIENT hereby agree* that If any unauthorized removal, alteration or modification ol coil and water conservation prectice herein named
occun Ihel the RECIPIENT will maintain, rep*lr or reconstruct the practice et hit/her own expense.
RECIPIENT hereby igreet to notify any prospective purchaser ol the property herein described ol the landowner's obligations crested by this
AGREEMENT end Section 467A.7(10) ol Ihe Iowa Code before legal or equitable title lo erry portion of thli property Is transferred.
COVERAGE OF THIS AGREEMENT:
DISTRICT and RECIPIENT agree that the soil and water contervailon prectlce detailed In the (oil owl no description and on the attached sketch
(hereby made pert ol this AGREEMENT) were partially or completely Installed with DISTRICT fund* end are covered by thta AGREEMENT
CONTRACT SALE
The parties acknowledge that the ebove-described real property Is the subject of a real properly contract sale wherein the RECIPIENT Is the
rai!l buyer and .
bathe contract teller.
The DISTRICT end the contract seller hereby egreelhet In the event ol contract default I orleHure or any action re lulling In the contract teller's
acquiring the reel properly, the contract seller shall be responsible lor compile nee with all provisions ol thlt agreement end shall be liable to the
seme extent aa the RECIPIENT would be If no such action had occurred. The contract teller acknowledges Ihe duty Imposed upon landowners
pungent to Section 467 A. 43. The Code, the requirement* o* Secllon4fl7A.7(16) of The Code, as amended by the I960 Sewlcnot the 6BW» General
Assembly, end thtl by virtue of the improvements inilelled upon the land wllh the eld ol the funds prov.did by thli agreement, the contract teller
will hev* received a benefit and an Improvement to Bald property, and also received aulilance in complying with Ihe above gtelutory duties.
Dm Signiiun ol Conine! 6ell*r Dai*
Distribution: SCO cue Ilia (white), Contract Seller (green). Recipient (cenary). DSC (pink). SCO maintenance egre
labor based on the average contractor's labor
charge for the district.
DALS grants Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
tricts flexibility in determining BMP cost-share fund-
ing limits. Some Soil and Water Conservation
Districts do not adopt project funding limits; they
rely on technicians to ensure that total costs are
reasonable and proper. Other districts establish
funding limits at the average cost of BMP installa-
tion during the previous year, adjusting for
predicted price increases.
Enforcement Mechanisms
A farmer who enters into a FIP agreement with
DALS and a Soil and Water Conservation District
must install BMPs in accordance with technical
specifications, and properly maintain them for the
stipulated maintenance period. BMP operation and
maintenance costs are not eligible for FIP cost-
share funds.
Soil and Water Conservation District tech-
nicians check the conditions of temporary BMPs
each year to assure satisfactory maintenance. The
23
-------
Exhibit 10
Program Procedures: FIP Program
Submittal of Management Plan
SCDs develop comprehensive plans for soil conservation, and for erosion and sediment control for the
districts.
Comprehensive Plan Approval
DALS officials review SCDs' comprehensive plans, suggest adjustments, and, if all program guidelines are
met, approve the plan.
Allocation of FIP Funds
DALS officials allocate FIP cost-share funds to the SCDs for the fiscal year. DALS determines funding utiliz-
ing the Conservation Needs Inventory.
Supplemental allocations of FIP funds are made by DALS in August and in February.
Technical Assistance by SCDs
All agriculturally productive farms are eligible for cost-share funds.
The SCDs notify farmers of the availability of funds to encourage submission of applications. SCO technicians
visit farms to jointly develop a 'farm unit soil conservation plan' with the land owner.
Contract Arrangements
Farmer submits a FIP application for cost-share funds identifying proposed BMPs and preliminary estimates.
SCDs accept or reject FIP cost-share application.
Time deadlines for BMP installation and completion are established by SCDs.
SCO Supervision of Cost-Share Funds
Upon completion of BMP implementation, a SCO technician certifies that completed practice is in compliance
with applicable standards and specifications.
Farmer submits Proof of Expense forms to the SCDs and technician determines whether costs are proper and
reasonable.
SCO technician completes certification of practice documenting BMP costs and compliance.
DALS forwards payment to SCDs for distribution.
Maintenance
Farmers sign maintenance and performance agreements pledging to adequately maintain BMPs for specific
periods. SCO personnel periodically check BMP maintenance and complete certification of practice form after
each visit.
Enforcement
Farmers not satisfactorily maintaining BMPs are issued an administrative order by SCDs detailing the FIP
violation. They must repair the BMP or repay cost-share funds received. Refusal to repay cost-share funds
warrants further action by the State Attorney General.
Source: F/P Policy Documents.
24
-------
determination of satisfactory maintenance of a BMP
is based on successful performance of its original
function. Maintenance inspections for permanent
BMPs are performed as often as Soil and Water Con-
servation District personnel believe necessary. After
each farm inspection, district technicians complete a
"Certification of Practice" form.
If a technician determines that a BMP is not being
satisfactorily maintained, the Soil and Water Conser-
vation District will send the landowner an administra-
tive order requiring appropriate maintenance, repair
or reconstruction of the practice. The farmer must
notify the Soil and Water Conservation District in
writing within 60 days that the situation will be cor-
rected and must begin that task within 120 days of
notification and complete it within one year.
Funding Level
State appropriations for soil erosion control incen-
tive programs exceeded $8.6 million for FY85 and
$8.8 million in FY86. Because of statewide budget
cutbacks, soil erosion control received only $6.5 mil-
lion in each of fiscal years 1987 and 1988. For fiscal
years 1989 and 1990, the General Assembly in-
creased the appropriation to about $6.7 million.
Ninety percent of these appropriations are used as
State funding for FIP; the remainder is used for non-
point source control programs at publicly controlled
lakes and for mandatory cost-share programs.
All of the funds allocated to FIP are used directly
by Soil and Water Conservation Districts to provide
voluntary cost-share funds to farmers. FIP funds are
not used for administrative costs incurred by the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts; SCS and an
Operations Fund of the Iowa DALS cover administra-
tion.
Participation
Since 1973, FIP has provided State cost-share funds
to approximately 5,000 farmers per year-to date,
approximately 70,000 farmers have used this assis-
tance. Despite the number of participants, several
districts have large waiting lists of farmers who wish
to join FIP but cannot be included because of fund-
ing limitations.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William McGill
Resource Conservationist
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship
(515)281-6148
25
-------
Maryland Agricultural Cost-share
Program
''The Maryland Agricultural Cost-Share Program
(MACS), which was created in 1983, provides finan-
cial assistance to farmers who install agricultural best
management practices to solve water quality
problems. Cropland, orchards, animal feedlots, graz-
ing land, and poultry operations all qualify under
MACS.
Under MACS, farmers receive up to 87.5 percent
of the cost of installing BMPs to control water quality
problems. Acceptable BMPs include critical area
plantings, strip-cropping, filter strips, grassed water-
ways, waste storage structures, terracing, diversion
ditches, runoff control ponds, spring development
(i.e., development of alternative sources of water to
reduce erosion of stream banks by domestic
animals), contour farming, and grade stabilization
structures. For a full list of all control categories and
applicable BMPs, see Exhibit 11.
The MACS program involves staff from the Soil
Conservation Districts and Maryland's Department
of Agriculture and Department of the Environment.
Soil Conservation Districts are responsible for
providing technical assistance to MACS applicants,
developing BMP plans, and designing the steps
needed to implement them. Soil Conservation Dis-
trict offices are staffed by a combination of Depart-
ment of Agriculture, local, county, and Federal Soil
Conservation Service employees.
Eligibility
Funding for installation of BMPs under MACS is
based on two essential considerations: existence of
a critical water pollution condition on a farm result-
ing from agricultural activities, and location of a farm
in relation to a "priority watershed." Priority water-
sheds are watersheds recognized as areas where
potential conditions hazardous to water resources
are more prevalent than elsewhere in the State (Ex-
hibit 12). The MACS program office allocates a
greater proportion of funds to these watersheds, but
monies are also available for cases where only the
first of the two conditions is met.
The Soil Conservation District determines if a
critical condition that warrants cost sharing exists on
a farm and, if necessary, will propose a BMP(s) to
correct the condition using SCS technical stand-
ards. Soil Conservation Districts assist in comple-
tion of grant applications for submittal to the
Department of Agriculture. Eligibility of each BMP for
State cost shares is determined by the MACS pro-
gram, based on information contained in the grant
application form.
Farmers who participate in both MACS and the
Federal cost-share program, the Agriculture Conser-
vation Program administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, may receive
additional cost-share grants for up to 87.5 percent of
total project cost. However, projects funded under
the Rural Clean Water Program and Clean Lakes
Program may not be eligible for additional funds
under MACS.
27
-------
Exhibit 11
Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share Program
List of Cost-Shared Best Management Practices
CONTROL
CATEGORY BMPs
f Contour
Cropland J
protection
farming
Contour
orchard
Diversion
Strip-
cropping
system:
Contour
Field
Wind
Terrace
system
f^ Critical
Permanent
area
planting
Field
border
Filter
vegetative <^
1 strip
cover
Field
windbreak
Windbreak
^ renovation
(" Spring
develop-
Grazing 1 ment
land
-------
Exhibit 11 (continued)
Maryland Agricultural Water Quality Cost-Share Program
List of Cost-Shared Best Management Practices
(Continued)
CONTROL
CATEGORY BMPs
l"' Grade
stabili-
zation
structure
Grassed
waterway/
Water J outlet
protection ]
Lined
waterway/
outlet
Sediment
basin
Water f
control
-------
Exhibit 12
MACS Program Priority Areas
D
Top 24 watersheds (EPA grant funds
are targeted here)
Other MACS priority watersheds
(funded with State and non-EPA monies)
Source: Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs Implementation Committee,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Jan. 1988. p. 56.
Exhibit 13
..c •aw,'" _r_
MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY COST SHARE PROGRAM
WATER QUALITY PROJECT FORM
If III In tootlon li FOA AGREEMENT NUMBER
PlMUglMy taluk) SECTION 1 - APPLICATION JO.
KK.™
-™
— |L.~_O ,L,,c^~^Z££,r ....,1,
^««w^ ,«^ ^^
1 1-5T.S ^"-^T^ %."£%£% T*'r "i, o '° ^J^.'^'X"1'.'."'' ^T""
^Cl-^1*1 ""* p""*el "* 2-t^^T" °" '™wc' *"
" APPLICANrS CERTIFJC;
r«qu«il cott-ttw ng under this progitrn lo tolve • wU
1 hive fequeslut It ne*d»d lo con««rve M I and wuor
O'vn guldllnei v\0 urtdvriltnd the ll»p» InvotvM t-an.uino lunds unlii I fi»v« r»c«ivM • 1
TrON
irqu^tlyptobtem Trt« project
• tourcai 1 fi»ve re»0 in« pro-
llei of «pprovkl uid • copy al
S,,...,. 1_« ,. TO.«™, 0.. IOT«,L»~~,
.. stou
"NO
Dm.
SECTION II - TECHNICAL REPORT
"~OJlCTO.COMre.ENn "ra. SJSlTEO
MEEDS STATEMENT 1* m. pron«: UXrwn on m*
wdv DuJtJUr praOWni')
VM C Ho O II no *.(M«n Mtov
ESTIMATE OF ELIGIBLE COST cocon^-o,
mo «OO
QUANTITY
Z>
MATCKiALSAERVICE
t .„„
a
FLAT RAT!
TOTAL
TOTAL COST
HATE: %
TOTAL
tt titK«* f C»C.w 1-v.n.t '•i.—
MMO
rt U«^n< «J tJtpfci tuuc«i luaJ
AQREEHENT NUMBER
SECTION III — TECHNICAL DETERMINATION
Tola) Tons Of Soil Bfllng " m«t^r>«3 S^envn MUTMMI M Ox»'ior»c *•*> Onunu 10 Win™ o' iftj. tuu
O«liver«] to WalefB of the Stale TfYR ] T r T 1 ( f | f |
Trf« M N
U Dmtntraf at •»<• pLU-tfi rMmmi (••»•« >wn«l ° Coil E>IKIK*>HII " Oem-on 1
V» G Ho O
a*w« .-«.«. ••
Ht-oi C.-jj^^, ^.j CtHT|p|CAT1QN
£ The Soil Conservalion District has reviewed this relerral and flndti It/does not llnd It
adequate and appropriate lor this program If not explain under general comments.
•IA-«^I-,^,D-.^T«,™1 °" ^1,™^,,..,^.™.^.^
"^-o-u- SECTION IV — DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY
T*. -.^lma D.^™, o. *x,,,c»,,-. M. ^.™,nM ,n« ,„,. >*— - '«. ^.^i^,,
uno^i wwm a r^ni 11 no. (.olf. M«>. CQST SHAp(es j.
'°"'0*U- SECTION V — AGREEMENT APPROVAL
Th. i..ryi».3 Ovo.nm.-ni OP *flf«;.MIu.. c•<* <*Q* KwnHnlfl.MI
Th« OoxC 0( rVWK W»o»*Jl AjJttTO^O C -D*Mponj.»<3 I
Tntt t^n+mir.!
Tnn Aflf*,iT,»ni .t *M,,0-r FtOfti Fundi
cut.
General Comments
30
-------
Exhibit 14
MARYLAND AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY COST SHARE PROGRAM
Exhibit 15 presents an overview of
the MACS cost-share program proce-
dures.
CLAIM FOR PAYMENT
'NAME AND ADDRESS
* P'ICllCt lit*
sQuinniy indUrnl
JC~°'«
S
B hUleniluS«r>ica
l0V«MO.
UkMnMtaM T. FMtafcMl - ^, „ ,„» « «,** com oo ,„.. «MrBW, „ you «„<, «». ,p*C.
L*«n;».™-fc-««.-.,a,..^ta.^*«w,.
3 A(|WW| NumM,
•taii'lMunlTNumlMi
'coCoi'Sru>*<]7
Con
" ff* EbgiDU Coil ncluOinfl
11 SO.F^E.MH-CO.,
"c&Co.lSnjnng^mjunl
"».-s». »,»-*»-,
is PMOMM . Ctei.teM.on - le^wr ^^£££ *££' ^^."^Y^m.*^ '"l"1" •c"im'"1<> 8l '"<"<"• c01" *• "" '"«•«•"«• »' "•• «ww wowa '«
v« *„ -
'»KDW» PERFORMANCE REPORT
U EM«n W «« B^,-. H »
lo the extent shown
prove the costs ind
»SVM».lD.»flM<«ITKMK,
FWUMU»
"Approval
S
^AtMniorul FunOtng Rcquesl
s
12 Total Heceireo by Applicani
SCO CERTIFICATION
n Section II Column 14 of Water Quality Project form has been performed
at left and meets program standards. The Soil
ct also cert ties thai they have reviewed this Claim lor Payment and ap-
cated above.
0.. I! **.*„,. !<*_». 0.0»,nM) D
"*
APPROVAL FOR PAYMENT
s *SSHOWN*'LE"
s
s
*grwu*
on SCS technical standards). It is at this point that
the applicant submits a claim to the State for pay-
ment (see Exhibit 14). All expenses must be justified
and fall within the flat rates set by the State. If expen-
ses exceed the initial Soil Conservation District es-
timates, a separate request for funds to cover the
difference must be submitted (Maryland estimates
that 5 to 6 percent of practices experience cost over-
runs). Payment is issued through the Department of
the Environment. Program administrators report that
many payments are made within a month of receipt
of the applicant's expense claim, if costs fall within
the original estimate.
The agreement between the applicant, the Soil
Conservation District, and the Department of
Agriculture also stipulates the period over which the
applicant must maintain the practice. Project main-
tenance lives are set by the Department of Agricul-
ture, and are noted on Exhibit 1 for all of the
accepted BMPs.
Cost Sharing
MACS provides up to 87.5 percent of
BMP installation costs (with the excep-
tion of sedimentation ponds), with
limits of $10,000 per project and
$25,000 per farm. If two or more farms
pool funds, up to $20,000 per project
can be provided. Pooling is allowed for
projects that are intended to solve a
pollution problem shared by two or
more farms. As shown in Exhibit 11, all
practices, except the creation of a
sedimentation pond, are eligible for an
87.5 percent cost share. This practice,
because of the other benefits it may
provide the farmer (e.g., storage of ir-
rigation water, fish production), is
eligible for a 65 percent cost share.
Under cost-shared BMPs, main-
tenance costs are borne by the farmer.
Flat rates are set for components of
all BMPs in each Soil Conservation Dis-
trict. For example, in Caroline County,
$1.50 is the rate for constructing a
diversion; $1,000/acre is allowed for
clearing and site preparation of a low
density area. The MACS program has
been working toward establishing
statewide rates for certain com-
ponents. Farmers also may be compensated for
their own labor during BMP installation. Thus,
farmers may apply their own labor to meet their por-
tion of the cost-share requirement.
Enforcement Mechanisms
A farmer who enters into a MACS agreement must
install the cost-shared BMP in accordance with tech-
nical specifications, properly maintain the BMP for
its expected life span, and provide the required
matching funds for installation of the project. The
farmer does not receive funds until work is complete
and all work and invoices have been reviewed by the
Soil Conservation District. If a farmer fails to properly
install or maintain a BMP in accordance with the
Department of Agriculture agreement, the farmer
may be liable for the full amount of State funds
31
-------
Exhibit 15
Program Procedures: MACS Program
Application Procedures
Applicant fills out MDA Request Form at SCD Office.
SCO completes Project Technical Determination Form.
SCD prepares technical report and final project cost estimates for submission to MDA with applicant
approval.
SCD forwards these forms to MDA.
Application Review and Approval
MDA reviews application.
If project is approved, the applicant is notified of estimated State cost-sharing funds within 30 days.
Technical Assistance By District
SCD prepares or approves all design, construction, maintenance, or other plans for the project.
Cost-sharing Agreement
MDA submits request for cost-share funds to the Maryland Board of Public Works through the MDE.
MDA receives approval for agreement from Maryland Board of Public Works.
MDA executes agreement with SCD and the applicant. If necessary, consent of landlord is obtained.
Project Establishment
Applicant begins approved project. Applicant has one year to complete project.
District Supervision
Periodic inspection of construction or installation of project by SCD.
Distribution of Cost-sharing Funds
Documentation of all costs by applicant.
Submission of Departmental Claim for Payment form.
Certification by SCD that project meets all applicable standards and specifications, and all costs are eligible.
Application for funds to cover cost overrun, if necessary.
Payment to applicant or directly to vendor or contractor.
Project Monitoring
SCD and MDA monitor maintenance of BMP. Violations reported by SCD to MDA.
SCD maintains records of all technical assistance provided under the cost-share program.
Enforcement
If an individual fails to establish, install, construct, or maintain a BMP in accordance with agreement with
MDA, MDA can act to recover the full amount of State cost-share funds paid for any practice that was not
implemented or maintained.
The Attorney General, at the request of the Secretary of Agriculture, may institute appropriate legal action to
enforce the terms and conditions of all cost-sharing agreements.
If inadequate maintenance or destruction of a BMP is caused by an act of nature that could not be foreseen,
the applicant is not liable.
Source: Chapter 5: Cost Sharing — Water Pollution Control Program.
Title 15 of Maryland Department of Agriculture Regulations.
32
-------
Exhibit 16
WWYLAND AGRICULTURAL UATER DUALITY COST SHARE PROGRAM
ON-FARN ETATUS REVIEU RECORD
Agrctrotnl Numbtr
Farm Numbtr
PRACTICE MAINTENANCE STATUS REVIEW
Completed
Practice
Number
Extent.
Performed (Unit*)
Satisfa
V*i
1
W
HDft-S-04 (rivlttd 12-1fl-fl6)
Funding Level
Maryland's agricultural cost-share program has
been in operation for five years, and was recently ex-
panded and extended. Over the first five years, $27
million in funds have been authorized by the
Maryland legislature. Another $3 million has been
made available through Federal sources.
Seventy-five percent of available cost-share
funds are reserved for installation of BMPs within
Maryland's nine priority watersheds, with the
balance distributed for treatment of critical condi-
tions outside priority watersheds. Funds are allo-
cated among priority watersheds based on acreage
of cropland, intensity of animal production, and the
general magnitude of agricultural nonpoint source
problems.
Funds can move between priority watersheds
and from priority watersheds to other areas. This is a
result of differences between an expected number of
applicants and the number that actually apply and
receive funds in any given watershed. However, no
application for installation of a BMP to remedy a criti-
cal condition has ever been rejected for lack of
funds.
received. The Soil Conservation District and
Department of Agriculture maintain the right to in-
spect the maintenance of all BMPs. Regular status
reviews are performed by Soil Conservation District
staff on 10 percent of the installed practices annual-
ly. The randomly selected list used for this inspection
is generated by the Department of Agriculture and
forwarded to the district. A project may not be
reviewed more than once every three years. During
this inspection, the On-Farm Status Review Record
is completed (see Exhibit 16).
In cases where a violation of the agreement is
found, the Soil Conservation District notifies the ap-
plicant and follows up later to ensure that the prob-
lem has been remedied. The Department of
Agriculture has the power to contact the Maryland
Attorney General in cases where violations are not
corrected within six months of the inspection date.
To date, few violations have been reported to the
Department of Agriculture by the Soil Conservation
Districts.
Participation
To date, 7,405 applications have been received by
the MACS program office. Of these, 5,266 have
remained on file (i.e., 2,139 applications have been
ruled ineligible by the program or withdrawn or can-
celed by the applicant). State funds have been
awarded by the Board of Public Works for 4,484 ap-
plications (totaling $19,654,600 million). Of these,
3,594 projects have been completed ($14,256,259
million).
The program is promoted through a number of
formal and informal mechanisms, including active
promotion by Soil Conservation District employees.
The Soil Conservation Districts rely on newsletters,
individual mailings, and radio farm shows to formally
advertise MACS. District employees also visit farms
regularly as part of their normal job duties.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
MACS Program Administrator
Maryland Department of Agriculture
(301)841-5864
33
-------
North Carolina Agriculture Cost-share
Program
Carolina's Agriculture Cost-Share Program
(ACSP) is administered by the North Carolina Soil
and Water Conservation Commission, which dis-
tributes funds to local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts for increased technical assistance and for
sharing with farmers the costs of implementing and
maintaining best management practices. The current
program was created by the North Carolina General
Assembly in 1987, but existed on a smaller scale
si nee 1984.
Farmers participating in the ACSP receive 75 per-
cent of the cost of implementing a system of ap-
proved BMPs. As of June 1988, over 4,600
agreements had been signed with farmers to imple-
ment erosion control, animal waste management,
and sediment control BMPs. State expenditures for
cost sharing and technical assistance are currently
about $6.5 million annually.
At the State level, water quality objectives are the
primary determinants for which districts receive
funding from the program; at the district level, tech-
nical assistance and cost-share funds are con-
centrated where they can reap the greatest water
quality benefits.
Eligibility
The Soil and Water Conservation Commission in
1989 made all of the State's 100 Soil and Water Con-
servation Districts eligible for cost-share funds under
the ACSR Eligibility is based on the priority given the
watershed(s) in which the district is located. Water-
sheds with nutrient sensitive water receive top
priority, followed by coastal and estuarine, moun-
tain, and piedmont waters.
Within priority watersheds, the criteria for allocat-
ing funds are based on the identified level of agricul-
turally-related nonpoint source pollution problems
and the district's BMP installation goals and avail-
able technical services. Those districts believed to
be best able to address water quality problems with
the aid of State money are targeted for funding. All
100 districts are expected to be participating by
1990.
Farmer eligibility depends on the focus of the
cost-share program within the district. Although the
ultimate goal of all participating districts is to reduce
agricultural nonpoint source pollution to improve
water quality, districts may employ different
strategies to reach that goal. The Soil and Water
Conservation Commission encourages these varia-
tions because it believes that districts can best ad-
dress water quality problems when they can tailor
programs to their individual circumstances.
Farmers interested in participating submit ap-
plications to the district board (a sample appears as
Exhibit 17). District staff often provide technical in-
formation to help farmers complete their applica-
tions.
An application must note where the farm is lo-
cated, into which waterways the land drains, and the
water quality problems for which assistance is
needed. In addition, each application includes a brief
checklist of the ways in which the proposed treat-
ment will improve water quality.
35
-------
Exhibit 17
APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURE COST SHARE PROGRAM
APPLICANT
Name John A. Farmer
Address
,,„,. -.
000 Any Street
Anyvhere, NC Zip 00000
LANDOWNER (if other than the Applicant)
Name Jane B . Ovner
Addres£
Rte. 4, Box 293
Anyvhere, NC zip 00000
Date September 10, 1988
County Any
Application Number
XX-89-XX-XX
Type of Agreement Requested
Annual Long Term ^
1. Describe location and type of agricultural operation.
SR 55555 northwest intersection SR 6666 f, 55555. 250 acre farm with beef
cattle and grain and hay production.
2. Describe problems for which assistance is needed.
Erosive soils need conservation cropping systems and structural practices to
prevent off-site damages. Animal waste management system is in planning.
3. Check bow treatment will improve water quality.
_X decrease erosion/sediment delivery
increase time water held on farm
_X store animal waste
X properly land apply animal waste
keep livestock out of stream
Name stream or canal land flows into.
Crystal Creek
I hereby apply for cost sharing assistance under the North Carolina Agriculture
Cost Share Program. This application does not guarantee cost share approval or
obligate the applicant to enter into a cost share agreement.
APPLICANT
U
la
Date
APPLICATION: Approved
Denied
DISTRICT CHAIRMAN
ll . t~[ • L A
Vn-88
The district board then reviews the application
and, if it is approved, assigns it a priority among
other approved applications to be addressed as
funds become available. In some cases, the district
board may try to persuade certain landowners to
join the program if their cooperation would be espe-
cially helpful in attaining water quality goals or in en-
couraging other farmers to participate.
Contract Arrangements/
Requirements
The farmer and the district technical staff draw up a
contract in which the farmer agrees to implement
each cost-shared BMP selected according to Soil
Conservation Service design
standards, and to follow a
specific schedule. Farmers
agree to maintain each BMP for
its minimum life expectancy. A
list of BMPs eligible for cost
sharing under the ACSP and
their life expectancies are
presented in Exhibit 18.
In addition, farmers agree
to allow sampling and inspec-
tions of installed BMPs. For
cropland affected by the cost-
share program, farmers must
agree to follow fertilizer applica-
tion recom- mendations as
closely as possible, and to sub-
mit soil test samples for
analysis at least once every two
years. To receive cost-share as-
sistance for animal waste
management systems, farmers
agree to have the waste
material analyzed annually to
determine its nutrient content. If
the waste is applied to the land,
farmers must adhere as closely
as possible to recommended
fertilizer application rates, and
must submit a soil sample of
the area of waste application
annually. In addition, a chemi-
cal analysis must be conducted
on soil samples taken from the
fields where the waste is to be
applied as fertilizer. Finally,
farmers must agree to allow
district representatives reason-
able access to the farmland to
inspect the BMP maintenance.
An example of an ACSP
contract is presented in Exhibit 19. A sample Plan of
Operation, which details the BMP implementation
schedule by field, year, and estimated units and
costs, is included as Exhibit 20 at the end of this
chapter.
Once agreements with the district are signed,
farmers often hire contractors to perform BMP instal-
lations, which can take from a few months to three
years to complete. District staffers check to see that
BMPs have been implemented as specified, request
reimbursement checks from the Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission, and deliver the checks to the
farmers (Exhibit 21 at the end of this chapter).
Farmers usually receive the checks within five busi-
ness days of the inspection.
36
-------
Exhibit 18
Best Management Practices Eligible for Cost-
Sharing Under the Agriculture Cost-Share
Program
Exhibit 19
NORTH CARO.IW
AGRICULTURAL COST StVWE PROGRAM
PRACTICES
MINIMUM LIFE
EXPECTANCY
(YEARS)
Conservation tillage system 1
Critical area planting 10
Cropland conversion (trees, grasses, or
permanent wildlife plantings) 10
Diversion 10
Field border 10
Filter strip 10
Grassed waterway 10
Heavy use area protection 10
Livestock exclusion 10
Pastureland conversion 10
Rock-lined waterways or outlets 10
Sediment control structure 10 ,
Sod-based rotation 4 or 5
Spring development 10
Stock trails and walkways 10
Stripcropping 5
Terrace 10
Trough or tank 10
Waste management system 10
Waste storage pond 10
Waste storage structure 10
Waste treatment lagoon 10
Land application of waste 1
Grade stabilization structure 10
Water control structure 10
Note: Conservation tillage systems and land application of
animal wastes are contracted for a maximum of three years per
farm. Farmers are expected to implement these BMPs on their
own initiative after this time.
Source: North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program
(Draft), North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Environmental Manage-
ment, Water Quality Section, August 1988.
COST SHARE AGREEMENT
This agreement Is entered Into on this 2?th day of s'Ptember ,19-2i,by and
between the Any so\\ and Water Conservation District and
John A. Farmer , applicant, flf OOP Any Street. Anywhere. NC 00000
Jane B. Owner , landovmer , flf Rte. *, Box 293, Anywhere. NC 00000
) Of
SIGNED:
Farmers may request revisions of their contracts
by submitting copies of the current agreement with
the desired changes noted. Because of unpre-
dictable weather conditions and the rapidly chang-
ing state of agriculture in North Carolina, contract
revision is common. Revisions to the cost-share
provisions of the contract reflect the changes in
BMP requirements. District supervisors must then DISTRICT CHAIRMAN
This agreement covers the period of practice Installation from srprpmhfr ?•>,
to September 25 ,0 91 ^j tne practice maintenance period which expires on
June 30 ia{2001.
THE APPLICANT(S) SHALL AGREE TO:
(t) Implement the best management practlce(s) to the best of his/her ability In
compliance with the rules governing this cost share program and according to the
attached plan of operation.
(2) Maintain and continue the cost-shared best management practices on the
attached plan of operation for the minimum life set forth by the Soil and Water
Conservation Commission. If the appltcant(s) fall to properly maintain or continue the
cost-shared practices, the appllcant(s) shall be required to repair or reimplement the
practice within a reasonable amount of time ( not to exceed one calender year ) or be
required to repay to the State of North Carolina a pro-rated amount of the cost-share
payment as set forth In the rules governing this program.
(3) Submit a soil test sample for analysis and follow the fertilizer application
recommendations as close as reasonably and practically possible. Sol) testing will be
conducted a minimum of every two years on all cropland affected by this cost share
program.
(4) As a condition for receiving cost share assistance for waste management
systems, have the waste material analyzed once every year to determine Its nutrient
content and If the waste Is land applied, to annually submit a soli test sample for
analysts of the area of waste application; and to apply the waste as close as reasonably
and practically possible to recommended fertilizer rates. If the appllcant(s) fall to
have the waste and soil analyzed within a reasonable amount of time as specified by the
District, the appllcant(s) will be required to repay to the State of North Carolina a
pro-rated amount of the cost-share payment as set forth In the rules governing this
program.
(5) Permit reasonable access by District representatives to provide technical
assistance and to Inspect the practices for proper maintenance and continuation.
THE DISTRICT SHALL AGREE TO:
(1) Provide technical assistance for the planning, design, Implementation,
maintenance and certification for all best management practices contained In the
attached plan of operation.
(2) Following District certification of proper best management practice
Implementation, provide to the designated appllcant(s) through the North Carolina
Division of Soil and Water Conservation 75JS of the average cost for each approved best
management practice contained In the attached plan of operation.
) Date 1 -&$-&&
)Date
)Date
37
-------
reapprove the agreement. Program officials es-
timate that roughly 80 percent of agreements are
revised before they are completed, and that reap-
proval consumes a significant amount of the district
staffs' time.
Program procedures are outlined in Exhibit 22.
Cost Sharing
Most eligible BMPs are cost shared at the rate of 75
percent of the predetermined average cost of im-
plementation, excluding operation and maintenance
costs. These average costs, which are adjusted for
different regions of the State, are reviewed annually
by the Soil and Water Conservation Commission for
accuracy and representativeness. Since actual
costs at the farm vary, the effective cost-share rate to
the farmer may be higher or lower than 75 percent.
The limit on total cost-share payments is $15,000 per
year per farmer.
Exhibit 22
North Carolina's program does not cost-share
the purchase of equipment, because equipment can
be used for purposes other than installation of water
quality-related BMPs. However, the principal cost of
implementing some BMPs is the purchase of special
equipment, such as that required for conservation til-
lage and some animal waste management practices.
Once the equipment has been purchased, the
average unit costs of the practices are relatively low.
Therefore, to encourage implementation of these
BMPs, farmers are offered flat rate per-unit incentive
payments that are somewhat higher than actual unit
costs.
Enforcement Mechanisms
During the year, district supervisors spot-check par-
ticipating farms to ensure that BMPs have been in-
stalled and maintained according to specifications.
In cases of improper BMP maintenance, the district
tries to help the landowner comply with the terms of
North Carolina Agricultural Cost-Share
Program Procedures
Application
Farmer files application for cost-share assistance with Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
District board approves or denies application. If approved, board assigns application a priority among
other approved applications.
Contracting
Farmers eligible for cost-share funds receive technical assistance from district staff to design BMP
systems and establish a Plan of Operation.
Farmer and District Chairman sign cost-share agreement.
Implementation, Inspection, and Payment
Farmer implements BMP systems according to schedule, hiring contractors as necessary.
District representative inspects farm for,proper installation of BMPs and applies for cost-share pay-
ment from the Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Project Monitoring
Farmers submit waste material and soil samples for analysis.
District representatives make spot checks on BMP maintenance.
Enforcement
Farmers failing to maintain or confine BMPs according to schedule, or to submit samples for testing,
repay a pro-rated amount of the cost-share payment.
Contract enforcement is ultimately the responsibility of the North Carolina Attorney General.
38
-------
the contract by increasing technical assistance.
Farmers are given one growing season to either re-
establish the practices or repay the State of North
Carolina a pro-rated amount of the cost-share pay-
ment. This provision is specified in all contracts. Ac-
cording to program officials, repayment of cost-
share monies has happened no more than three
times in the four years the program has been in ef-
fect.
Funding Level
The 56 districts currently funded by the program
have budgeted nearly $5.8 million for cost share with
farmers; the current budget for technical assistance
cost sharing between the State and the districts is
$825,000. This does not include additional support
for administration or for staff provided by either the
State or local governments.
Annual allocations from the State budget to the
Soil and Water Conservation Districts are decided by
the Soil and Water Conservation Commission upon
review of the districts' annual strategy plans. These
plans state district needs for reducing agricultural
nonpoint sources of pollution, and estimate the
costs of installing BMPs to solve these problems.
As stated earlier, all 100 districts in the State are
expected to be eligible for program benefits by 1990.
The ACSP budget for that year is expected to be
about $10 million. In 1997, the Soil and Water Con-
servation Commission will reassess the program
and make adjustments in total funding. The North
Carolina Agricultural Task Force expects the $10 mil-
lion annual appropriation to continue through 1997,
at which time the program would be reduced to
reflect the decreased need for cost sharing to
achieve water quality objectives. A reappraisal at
that time may indicate a need to protect the im-
proved water quality.
Participation
From August 1984 to June 1988, the ACSP was
responsible for the signing of 4,643 agreements be-
tween farmers and Soil and Water Conservation Dis-
tricts. It is estimated that over 350,000 acres are
enrolled in the program. Exhibit 23 lists the acreage
in various BMPs installed in the State.
Participation is limited by a number of factors,
however, including the availability of funding and
technical assistance. In addition, district staffers find
that projects can be delayed because local highway
and mall construction projects use some of the
same contractors and equipment to install certain
BMPs. Because of these and other constraints, ap-
plications for cost-share funds are approximately
twice the number that can be accommodated.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James R. Cummings
Resource Program Coordinator
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
(919) 733-2302
Exhibit 23
Best Management Practices
August 1984 - June 1988*
Agreements
Total acres
Acres erosion control
Annual tons of soil saved
4,643
351,172
140,049
1,116,748
EROSION CONTROL BMPs
Sod-based rotation (acres)
Cropland conversion (acres)
Conservation tillage (acres)
Critical area planting (acres)
Stripcropping (acres)
Terraces/diversions (ft.)
11,911
166,291
83,545
567
9,052
743,996
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT
Systems 249
Gallons storage capacity 191,056,569
Tons of dry storage capacity 39,488
Nitrogen (Ibs.) storage capacity 5,090,786
Phosphorus (Ibs.) storage capacity 3,283,927
Liquid waste application (gallons) 399,984,724
Poultry litter applied (tons) 165,186
Acres to which applied 84,864
Nitrogen (Ibs.) applied 15,503,284
Phosphorus (Ibs.) applied 13,820,666
SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPs
Grassed waterways (acres)
Field borders (acres)
Water control structures (no.)
(sediment and nutrients)
Stream protection systems (no.)
ZZ1
1,565
1,645
1,337
347
"56 counties
Source: North Carolina Nonpoint Source Management Program
(Draft), North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and
Community Development, Division of Environmental Manage-
ment, Water Quality Section, August 1988.
39
-------
Exhibit 20
NORTH CAROLINA
AGRICULTURAL COST SHARE PROGRAM
PLAN OF OPERATION
HAME: COUNT?
ADDRESS: John A. Farmer
000 Any Street
Anywhere, N.C. 00000 Any
ITEM
NO.
1
2
FIELD
NO.
1
2.3,6
PLANNED
TIEATMENT
Waste Hgnt. System
Grading & Excav.
Vegetation (la)
Lime Dolomltlc
Fertilizer
10-10-10
Seedbed prep.
Small Grain
Seed (Tall fescue)
Small Grain Mule; ft
taste Hunt.
.and apply lagoon
fas tea In environ
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT
(UNITS)
1304 cu yd
.5 ac
2000 Ibs
500 Ibs
30 Ibs
30 Ibs
.5 ac
300000 eal
AGREEMENT NUMBER
XX-89-XX-XX
AVERAGE
COST
$
1.67/
cu yd
226
00 ac
300.
00 or
4/lOOOzal
COST
SHARE
I
751
75Z
Til
FR
TOTAL ACRES
EFFECTED
110
ANIMAL TYPE
AND NUMBER
50 Cows
TIME SCHEDULE AND
ESTIMATED COST SHARE BY PROGRAM YEAR
(FOR NON-COST SHARE ITEMS SHOW UNITS)
19 88 19 89 1990
1633.00
85.00
1 11 no
600.00
600.00
SOIL
LOSS
PRE POST
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
safe manner
Technical Representative
.
VA--
Date
NAME: .!„»,„ A. Farner COUNTY
ADDRESS: QOO Any Street
Anywhere, N.C. 00000 Any
ITEM
NO.
3
FIELD
NO.
4
PLANNED
TREATMENT
Diversion
Grading
Land Smoothing
Vegetation
Line
Fertilizer
10-10-10
Feacue
S«iH Criiln
Small Grain Mulch
Mulch Netting
ESTIMATED
AMOUNT
(UNITS)
300 ft.
0
.2 ac
.4 ton
ion ih«
.12 lha
1/4 h,,
.7 ,c
3000 sq ft
AGREEMENT NUMBER
XX-89-XX-XX
AVERAGE
COST
$
.70 ft.
226.00 xr
300.00 a,-
.03 8d f
COST
SHARE
Z
75Z
751
75Z
TOTAL ACRES
EFFECTED
110
ANIMAL TYPE
AND NUMBER
50 Cows
TIME SCHEDULE AND
ESTIMATED COST SHARE BY PROGRAM YEAR
(FOR NON-COST SHARE ITEMS SHOW UNITS)
19_aa_ 19 Hq 19 qn
158.00
34.00
45.00
68.00
SOIL
LOSS
PRE POST
45
15
Technical Representative V&,
Date
40
-------
Exhibit 20 (continued)
NAME: TT — : — ~
ADDRESS: ^JV «!"""
000 Any Street
Anywhere, N.C. 00000
ITEM
NO.
5
FIELD
NO.
5
PLANNED
TREATMENT
Sod-baaed Rotation
Establish as follc
1st yr-small grair
orchard ifr*
2nd yr-orchard gra
ladlnn rim,
3rd yr-corn, small
4th vr-rnrn
See attached job
flhppf 11 for • 'j)t4>-
Datc
41
-------
Exhibit 20 (continued)
NAME:
ADDRESS
ITEM
NO.
John A. Farmer COUNTY AGREEMENT NUMBER TOTAL ACRES ANIMAL TYPE
: 000 Any Street EFFECTED AND NUMBER
Anywhere, N.C. 00000 Any XX-89-XX-XX 110 50 Cows
FIELD
NO.
PLANNED
TREATMENT
ANNUAL COSTS:
TOTAL COST SHA
The Cooperat]
specif lea tic
carry out tt
the contrnct
aod-baaed ro
years except
annual pract
2 years and
AGREED TO BT
COOPERATOR:
TECHNICAL RE
DISTRICT CH/\
ESTIMATED
AMOtTNT
(UNITS)
E: $7163.00
or agrees to
ns approved b
e un-numbered
The cooper
tat Ion for a
for conserva
ices. The co
anlma 1 wa s t e
: vJyTt-AV
1
PRESENTATIVE:
IRMAN:
AVERAGE
COST
t
ipply the
f the Div
contract
itor agre
ninimum o
tion till
operator
annually.
a. 3*t
fa»&(.
^ ^.
/./-/.
COST
SHARE
Z
planne<
sion of
items (
a to mn
17 »
ge and
lao agi
7^-f-^
kv«7-
Ittfv .
CAO^V
TIME SCHEDULE AND
ESTIMATED COST SHARE BY PROGRAM YEAR
(FOR NON-COST SHARE ITEMS SHOW UNITS)
1988 1989 1990
2243.00
treatment
UN) does no
incnln the
ontha in «o<
land applic
ees to test
4270.00
ccordlng
cons 1 1 1 u
t ripcropp
, and all
tion of a
soil on b
Date:
Date:
Date:
600.00
o the stand
e non-compl
ng system I
other pract
nef ited acr
/o-is>-6*
/o-td-86
10 -W66
10- zos€>
SOTL
LOSS
PRE POST
trds a
.ance
ir 5 y
c e a 1
;s eve
id
C O
i»n r B ,
}
are
ry
42
-------
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
Exhibit 21
May 10, 1989
CCUKTY ,
Any
AWMMIKT MtWR
XX-89-XX-XX
PLANNED TREATMENT COMPLETED
ITEM
NO.
1
2
4
FIELD
NO.
1
2,3
A
PRACTICE
Waste Management System - Grading
- Vegetation
- Small Grain Mulch
Land Application of Waste
Diversion - Grading
Vegetation
- Small Grain Mulch
UNITS
PLANNED
1304 cu yd
.5 ac
.5 ac
300,000 gal
300 ft
.2 ac
.2 ac
UMTS
COMPLETED
1304 cu yd
.5 ac
.5 ac
150,000 gal
250 ft
.2 ac
.2 ac
TOTAL
AMOUNT EARNED (t)
1633.00
85.00
113.00
600.00
131.00
34.00
45.00
2641.00
I (W§) hereby certify (hel the above practices have been Implemented according to the specifications of this program and (ho planned units of each proct Ice hove been
completed as shown. I (We) also certify that this request contains no duplication of payment under eny other federal or state cost share program.
APPLICANT (j. A. Partner )
PAYMENT DUE t 264 1.00
SOCIAL SECURITY NO. 123-45-6789
NAME
ADDRESS
John A. Fanner
000 Any Street
Anywhere, N.C. 00000
i/fT^ YCj&t***^ S'/O-Qy
APPLICANT ( )
PAYMENT DUE $ 0.00
SOCIAL SECURITY NO.
NAME Jan
-------
Wisconsin Agricultural Cost-share
Programs
1985 survey showed that over one-third of
Wisconsin's rivers and streams are threatened or af-
fected by nonpoint sources of water pollution. To ad-
dress these problems, Wisconsin has developed two
major agricultural nonpoint source programs that
provide cost-share funds and technical assistance to
farmers.
The first program, the Wisconsin Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution Abatement Program (Non-
point Source Program), allocates funds and
authorizes the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to control nonpoint source pollution. The
Department of Natural Resources selects critical
watersheds and oversees water quality manage-
ment plans that lead to the implementation of
agricultural best management practices.
The second program, the Soil and Water
Resource Management Program (Soil and Water
Program), provides the necessary administrative
and financial assistance to control soil erosion
problems and to conserve long-term soil produc-
tivity. The Department of Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection (DATCP) oversees
Wisconsin's counties' soil erosion control plans, and
provides funding to install agricultural BMPs.
While the Soil Program is intended primarily to
control soil loss from Wisconsin farms, it also
reduces nonpoint source pollution. In addition, while
the primary emphasis of the Soil Program is on tech-
nical assistance, cost-share funds are also made
available to farmers by DATCP to implement BMPs
to control soil erosion.
Farmers who are eligible for cost-sharing funds
under either program may receive between 50 and
70 percent of the labor and material costs of install-
ing BMPs. Acceptable BMPs include contour crop-
ping, stripcropping, field diversions, terraces,
grassed waterways, reduced tillage, critical area
stabilization, grade stabilization structures, shore-
line protection, settling basins, barnyard runoff
management, manure storage facilities, and live-
stock exclusion from woodlots (for a complete list-
ing and full description of all applicable BMPs, see
Exhibit 24).
Both programs are administered at the local level
by Land Conservation Committees. These commit-
tees are responsible for developing a working
relationship with farmers, determining which BMPs
should be implemented on a given farm, developing
cost-share agreements and contracts with farmers,
and assuring implementation, compliance, and
maintenance of these agreements. The Land Con-
servation Committees receive assistance from the
University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, the USDA Soil Conservation Service, and the
USDA Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service.
Eligibility
Selection of Priority Watersheds/
Critical Areas
• NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM: Under this
program, the Department of Natural Resources of-
fers cost-share funds to farms located within priority
watersheds, using a two-step process to identify
those watersheds:
45
-------
Exhibit 24
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source and Soil Erosion Programs
BEST
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICE
Contour cropping
Strip cropping
Field diversions
Terraces
Grassed waterways
Reduced tillage
Crop rotations
Fertilizer management
Pesticide management
Critical area stabilization
Grade stabilization
Shoreline protection
Barnyard runoff mgt.
Manure storage (long)
Manure storage (short)
Livestock excl/woodlots
- Up to $10,000
" Up to $6,000
EFFECTIVE-
NESS
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
CAPITAL
COST
Low
Low
Moderate
Mod-high
Moderate
Low
None
Low
Low
High
High
High
Mod-high
High
Moderate
Low
ON-
SITE
BENEFIT
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
RELATION
OPERATING
PRACTICES
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low-mod
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
COST
SHARE
RATE %
50
50
70
70
70
50
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70*
70**
50
1. TheDNR uses the following factors to rank
watersheds:
• livestock use and agricultural
production;
• the magnitude of nonpoint source
pollutant loads;
• the potential for significant nonpoint
source reductions;
• the severity of water quality problems;
and
• the potential increased public use and
benefits that would result from efforts to
control nonpoint source pollution.
2. The DNR also examines additional factors:
• the county's willingness to participate in
the program;
• the number of projects in the county;
and
• the DNR's workload.
In developing its priorities, the DNR encourages
participation at the district level, including regional
committees such as the Land Conservation Commit-
tees, and representatives from the SCS, U.S.
Geological Survey, League of Municipalities, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin, and other interested groups. The
DNR also consults with the DATCP in developing the
list of priority watersheds.
• SOIL PROGRAM: Under the Soil Program, the
DATCP is directed to define critical areas, and thus,
those counties that are eligible to draw up soil
erosion management plans. These counties can
offer cost-share funds to farmers under the Soil Pro-
gram.
The DATCP bases the determination of critical
areas on an SCS document, the Natural Resources
Inventory, which presents results of an inventory of
environmental factors, such as major land resource
areas of Wisconsin, temperature, rainfall, and cover
status. These factors were used to compute the
average predicted erosion rate for each county. The
DATCP chose those counties with an average
predicted erosion rate above the tolerable level (T
value) and with significant acres of cropland to draw
up a soil erosion management plan.
During this stage, DATCP does not consider sub-
jective variables such as farmers' willingness to par-
46
-------
ticipate, to choose which counties should submit
soil erosion management plans (for a map of coun-
ties involved in the Soil Program, see Exhibit 25). All
management plans are now complete
The DATCP's selection of critical areas for the
Soil Program is less exclusive than the Department
of Natural Resources' selection of priority water-
sheds, evidenced by the fact that 55 of Wisconsin's
72 counties are required to participate, while only 32
of 330 watersheds have been selected for nonpoint
source control.
Selection of Eligible Farmers and BMPs
• NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM: When a
watershed is selected to become a priority water-
shed, the Department of Natural Resources provides
complete funding to Land Conservation Committees
Exhibit 25
Erosion Control Planning
Project Status May 1, 1988
Source: Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Management Report.
to hire additional staff and to cover expenses in-
curred in developing a watershed plan. A priority
watershed project can involve several Land Conser-
vation Committees if the watershed is in more than
one county.
The main purpose of a watershed plan is to
evaluate the critical nonpoint source pollution
problems for the watershed so as to choose which
landowners and BMPs will be eligible for cost-share
funds. A watershed plan documents the location of
all significant sources of pollution, the best ways to
control them, what changes in water quality or water
use will result from their control, how much the
project will cost, and the necessary staffing level.
To produce these plans, the Land Conservation
Committees must inventory and test livestock waste
runoff, upland erosion, streambank erosion, and
nitrogen loading: Acres of cropland are inventoried
to determine crop location and crop rotation prac-
tices. Tests to determine the poten-
tial for ground water contamination
have recently been added to the
process.
The Department of Natural
Resources uses a computer model
to determine which farms con-
tribute most to nonpoint source
pollution within watersheds and
therefore, should be eligible for
cost-share funds. The Wisconsin
Nonpoint Model (WIN) is a sedi-
ment delivery model that provides
a field-by-field analysis of sediment
loadings to a watershed. WIN
scores farms on factors such as
slope of the land, existence of buff-
er zones, type and quantity of
crops grown, planting method, and
distance from the farm to surface
water. WIN estimates how long it
takes runoff to travel to other fields
and watersheds by using USLE
parameters, crop rotation, data,
average upslope and downslope
boundaries, and channel flow.
With this information, Land
Conservation Committees place
each farm in one of the following
categories: eligible essential,
eligible, or not eligible. Those farms
classified in the former two
categories qualify for technical as-
sistance and cost-share funds
under the Nonpoint Source Pro-
gram. Farms that are eligible es-
Plan Status
LCB approved
Plan in progress
No plan required
47
-------
sential can be required to implement necessary
BMPs if they will not sign cost-share agreements
voluntarily (they will still be offered cost-share
funds). As of summer 1989, this requirement has not
been enforced.
Thirty-two watersheds have been chosen by the
Department of Natural Resources for priority water-
shed projects (out of 330 watersheds), making ap-
proximately 20 percent of the State's farmers eligible
for cost-sharing funds under the Nonpoint Source
Program (see Exhibit 26).
Exhibit 26
• SOIL PROGRAM: After Wisconsin's DATCP
selects counties to participate in its Soil Program,
local Land Conservation Committees develop soil
erosion plans with funding provided by the DATCP
Counties may receive cost-share grants at a rate of
50 percent of the costs incurred during preparation
of soil erosion control plans.
Factors similar to those used by the Nonpoint
Source Program are used to determine which land-
owners are eligible for the Soil Program. In addition,
the Land Conservation Committees use the USLE, a
tool developed by USDA to relate major erosion fac-
tors to predicted erosion rates, to create a soil
Priority Watershed Projects in Wisconsin — 1988
• Local priority projects
Critical nonpoint source area
Priority watersheds
Small scale
Source: Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Management Report.
48
-------
erosion plan that targets certain BMPs and land-
owners for participation in the Soil Program.
Landowners who reside in an area where the
DATCP has approved a soil erosion management
plan, and who contribute significantly (as defined
previously) to the soil erosion problem, are eligible
for cost sharing and technical assistance under the
Soil Program. Fifty-five of Wisconsin's 72 counties
have designed soil erosion plans. About 45 percent
of the State's farmers are eligible for cost-sharing
funds and/or technical assistance under the Soil
Program.
Contract Arrangements/
Requirements
Nonpoint Source Program
After developing watershed plans, Land Conserva-
tion Committees contact those farmers who are
eligible for cost-share funds. The first contact is by a
mailing that describes the county water quality and
the landowner's eligibility for cost-share funds. The
Land Conservation Committees also send out
newsletters announcing the selection of their county
to participate in the Priority Source Program. The
next step is to visit qualified farms to determine
which BMPs are applicable to individual farms.
If the landowner agrees to implement the BMPs
deemed necessary by the Land Conservation Com-
mittees, a cost-share contract is signed by both par-
ties. The landowner must complete the project
within five years and must maintain BMPs for at least
10 years thereafter. The landowner can submit a re-
quest for cost-share funds annually during the five-
year implementation process, receiving reimburse-
ment for labor and capital costs accrued over the
year. Alternatively, if the BMP is installed during a
single fiscal year, the landowner submits a request
for full reimbursement. A landowner can either per-
sonally implement the BMP or hire a contractor.
Exhibit 27 presents an overview of Wisconsin's
Nonpoint Source Program procedures.
Soil and Water Program
The process of negotiating contracts and im-
plementing BMPs under the Soil Program is quite
similar to that described for the Nonpoint Source
Program. Both programs are working to eliminate
extensive delays between contract signing and BMP
implementation by encouraging Land Conservation
Committees to complete the cost-sharing agree-
ment when the landowner is ready to implement the
BMPs. This should reduce the likelihood of forgetful-
ness or decreased willingness on the part of the
farmer (which could be caused by volatile market
conditions for farm products) to take part in the pro-
gram.
An important characteristic of both of
Wisconsin's cost-share programs is the mandatory
acceptance by the farmer of all BMPs that Land Con-
servation Committees determine are necessary to
control nonpoint source pollution. Thus, a land-
owner may not choose to install only those practices
that have the highest on-site benefits.
Exhibit 28 presents an overview of Wisconsin's
Soil Program procedures.
Cost Sharing
Both programs provide between 50 and 70 percent
of BMP installation costs, with State funding limits
only for long-term manure storage facilities ($10,000
limit). Any cost-share agreement exceeding $50,000
(or $25,000 for the Soil and Water Program) in State
monies must be submitted to the Department of
Natural Resources or DATCP respectively, for ap-
proval.
Counties must choose a cost containment proce-
dure based on average cost, range of costs, or bid-
ding. For the average cost containment procedure, a
county determines, based on past cost information,
an average not-to-be-exceeded cost per unit of
materials and labor for the installation of each type of
BMP For the range of costs containment procedure,
a county establishes, based on past cost informa-
tion, a cost range for the installation of each type of
BMP Eligible costs may not exceed the maximum
cost of the range. For the bidding cost containment
procedure, a county requires the landowner or land
operator to request bids from contractors for the in-
stallation of a BMP The landowner or land operator
must accept the lowest bid.
Farmers are compensated for labor costs in-
curred during installation of the BMPs under the two
programs at a wage rate set by Land Conservation
Committees.
For all BMPs, maintenance costs are borne by
the farmer, unless a BMP is rendered ineffective be-
cause of a natural disaster. In that case, the land-
owner is eligible for cost-share funds to repair the
damage. The Land Conservation Committees are
responsible for insuring that all expenses claimed by
the landowners for reimbursement are justified and
reasonable.
The cost-share rate under each program is based
on the philosophy that there are private and public
49
-------
Exhibit 27
Program Procedures: Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Program
Selection of Priority Watersheds
DNR develops a priority ranking of watersheds after a technical evaluation of water quality and NFS pollution
potential.
Regional committees review DNR prioritizations and make recommendations for adjustments.
DNR finalizes the list of watersheds accepted as priority watersheds.
Submittal of Management Plan
DNR provides complete funding for LCCs to create watershed plans.
LCCs perform extensive inventorying and testing of water quality. LCCs submit watershed plans that document
the location of significant sources of pollution, define best control options, and estimate project costs.
Watershed Plan Approval
DNR reviews the LCC watershed plan, suggests adjustments, and, if all program guidelines are met, approves
the plan.
Contact Eligible Farmers
LCC officials contact farmers eligible for cost-shares. This is accomplished by direct mail and/or a newsletter.
A visit by LCC representatives to eligible farms is made for an exact determination of appropriate BMPs.
Contract Agreement
After a watershed is declared a priority, LCCs have three years to finalize cost-share agreements. As part of this
agreement, farmer must accept all BMPs necessary to control agricultural NPS pollution.
Project Implementation
Farmer has five years to implement all BMPs from the time cost-share agreement is signed.
Periodic inspection of installation or construction is performed by LCCs.
Distribution of Cost-Share Funds
LCCs review all completed work and all submitted invoices for approval before cost-sharing funds are
distributed. Farmer receives cost-share funds at the completion of the project, or may receive reimbursement at
the close of each fiscal year for work completed during that fiscal year if BMP installation runs more than one
year.
Project Monitoring
Farmer must maintain BMPs for a 10-year period.
LCCs monitor maintenance of BMP during visits to farms. Violations not corrected by the farmer are reported to
DNR.
Enforcement
If an individual fails to properly install or maintain a BMP in accordance with the agreement with LCCs,
DNR can act to recover the full amount of State cost-share funds paid for any practice not implemented
or maintained.
The Attorney General, at the request of the DNR, may institute appropriate legal action to enforce the
terms of all cost-share agreements.
If inadequate maintenance or destruction of a BMP is due to natural causes, the applicant is not liable
and may be eligible for new cost-share.
Source: Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Program Policy Documents.
50
-------
Exhibit 28
Program Procedures: Wisconsin's Soil Program
Selection of Soil Erosion Counties
DATCP chooses counties to draw up soil erosion management plans based on the average predicted erosion
rate for each county.
Submittal of Management Plan
DATCP provides LCCs with 50 percent of the costs incurred during preparation of soil erosion control plans
and 100 percent reimbursement for administrative assistance. LCCs utilize the Universal Soil Loss Equation to
create a soil erosion plan that targets certain BMPs and landowners for the soil program.
Soil Plan Approval
DATCP officials review the LCC Soil Plan, suggest adjustments, and, if all program guidelines are met, ap-
prove the plan.
Contact Eligible Farmers
LCC officials contact farmers eligible for cost-shares by direct mail and/or a newsletter. A visit by LCC
representatives to eligible farms is made for an exact determination of appropriate BMPs.
Contract Agreement
DATCP allows LCCs significant flexibility in determining the timetable for BMP installation. LCCs are en-
couraged to complete the cost-sharing agreement when the landowner is ready to implement BMPs. As part
of this agreement, farmers must accept all BMPs necessary to control soil erosion.
Project Implementation
Farmers are encouraged to install BMPs soon after the contract is signed.
Periodic inspection of installation or construction is performed by LCCs.
Distribution of Cost-Share Funds
LCCs review all completed work and all submitted invoices for approval before cost-sharing funds are
distributed. Farmer receives cost-share funds at the completion of the project, or may receive reimbursement
at the close of each fiscal year for work completed during that fiscal year if BMP installation takes more than
one year.
Project Monitoring
Farmer must maintain BMPs for a 10-year period.
LCCs monitor maintenance of BMP during visits to farms. Violations not corrected by the farmer are reported
to DATCP.
Enforcement
If an individual fails to properly install or maintain a BMP in accordance with the agreement with LCCs,
DATCP can act to recover the full amount of state cost-share funds paid for any practice not implemented or
maintained.
The Attorney General, at the request of, the DATCP, may institute appropriate legal action to enforce the
terms of all cost-share agreements.
Source: Wisconsin's Soil Program Policy Documents.
51
-------
benefits. For example, the construction of a manure
storage facility has a high capital cost and a high ex-
pected public benefit. But a manure storage facility
provides only a moderate private benefit and, thus,
has the State-funded maximum cost-share rate of 70
percent.
The Land Conservation Committees have some
discretion in adjusting upward the cost-share rates
available to landowners using local funds, but the
Department of Natural Resources and the DATCP
encourage Land Conservation Committees to use
standard rates to ensure equity between farms in dif-
ferent parts of the State.
For certain practices that have little direct benefit
to the farmer, the Department of Natural Resources
and the DATCP will match the Land Conservation
Committee's increase of a cost-sharing rate up to 10
percent. For example, some counties could have a
cost-share rate of 90 percent (up from a level of 70
percent suggested by the State) for a particular BMR
such as critical area stabilization. This is made pos-
sible by using their own funds to pay for a 10 percent
increase in the cost-share rate and the State's
matching funds to pay for an additional 10 percent
(see Exhibit 29).
Exhibit 29
Grossman Creek Little Baraboo River
Priority Watershed Project
Sauk County
CODE
C1
C2
C3
C5
C8
C9
M1
M1
M2
MF
MR
MS
MC
MO"
M4
L1
L3
LL
LS
LR
BMP
Contour cropping
Contour strip cropping
Diversions
Waterways
Reduced tillage: rotated cropland
Reduced tUlage: continuous row crop
Critical area stabilization
Critical pasture stabilization
Grade stabilization structure
Streambank fencing
Riprap
Streambank, shaping and seeding
Stream crossing
Other Streambank work
Settling basins
Barnyard runoff management
Livestock exclusion from woodlots
Long-term manure storage
Short-term manure storage
Roof for barnyard runoff management
UNIT
Acres
Acres
Feet
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Each
Rods
Feet
Feet
Each
Number
Each
Rods
Each
Each
Each
COST-
SHARING
$ 6/acre
$127 acre
70%
70%
$15/acre*
$45/acre**
90%
50% t
90%
$16.20/rod
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
70%
$ 9/rod
70%***
70%***
70%
* One year payment for reduced tillage on cropland in a rotation.
" Payments to be made over three years for reduced til/age on crop/and in continuous row crop.
'*' State cost-share may not exceed $10,000 for long-term storage and $6,000 for short-term manure storage.
t Maximum payment of $80/acre State share of eligible costs.
All landowner woric contributions are calculated at $5.00/hour and eligible for 70% reimbursement.
All practices must be maintained for W years following installation of the last contracted practice.
Source: S*u* County, Waconsin LCC.
52
-------
Enforcement Mechanisms
A landowner who enters into a cost-share agree-
ment with the Department of Natural Resources or
the DATCP must implement the BMP in accordance
with technical specifications, and maintain the BMP
for a period stipulated in the agreement. The land-
owner may receive cost-share funds at the comple-
tion of the project, or receive partial payment for the
components completed if the BMP takes more than
one year to complete. The Land Conservation Com-
mittees must review all work completed and all sub-
mitted invoices for approval before cost-share funds
are paid. If a farmer fails to properly install or main-
tain a BMP in accordance with the signed agree-
ment, the landowner may be liable for the full amount
of State funds paid.
In cases where a violation of the maintenance
agreement is found, the Land Conservation Commit-
tee verbally notifies the applicant and asks the land-
owner to correct the situation to avoid further action.
If the landowner does not try to correct the violation,
a Land Conservation Committee representative will
document the complaint in writing with a reminder to
the landowner of the legal obligation to maintain the
BMP The next step is a letter from the Department of
Natural Resources or the DATCP informing the land-
owner that the county district attorney will be notified
of the misuse of State funds unless the violation is
corrected immediately.
Violations are almost always corrected after the
landowner is informed verbally of the situation by a
Land Conservation Committee representative. The
furthest that any enforcement action has gone to
date is the documentation of the violation in writing
by the Land Conservation Committee (the second
step outlined).
If a change in ownership, land use, or manage-
ment occurs during the cost-share agreement
period, the cost-share recipient must repay funds
unless one of two conditions is met: (1) assurance,
in writing, by the new owner or operator that BMPs
will be properly maintained, or (2) demonstration to
the county that the change in land use or manage-
ment will not result in the degradation of existing
water quality.
Funding Level
Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Program has allo-
cated approximately $29 million for cost-share
grants and about $5 million in local assistance in its
10-year existence (1978-88). An estimated 99.15
percent of the cost-share grants were spent for
agricultural BMPs.
The DATCP allocates $2.7 million annually to
Land Conservation Committees for implementation
of the Soil Program. Of this funding, $500,000 is tar-
geted to agricultural cost-share grants.
Participation
To date, 1,763 cost-share contracts have been
signed under the Nonpoint Source Program and
reported to the Department of Natural Resources by
the Land Conservation Committees. This figure does
not include contracts signed by farmers but not
reported.
Through 1989, approximately 500 cost-share
contracts under the Soil Program have been signed
and reported to the DATCP by Land Conservation
Committees. Again, others may have been signed by
farmers but not yet reported.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
So/7 Erosion Control Program:
David Jelinski
Chief, Soil and Water Resource Management
Section
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection
(608)266-0157 "
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program:
Michael Llewelyn
Chief, Nonpoint Source and Land Management
Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
(608) 266-9254
53
------- |